vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? seeing none, on this vote the yeas are 56, the nays are 42. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. mr. mccain: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i withdraw my amendment number 4229. the presiding officer: the senator has that right and the amendment is withdrawn. mr. mccain: i call up my amendment number 4607. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from arizona, mr. mccain, proposes an amendment numbered 4607. mr. mccain: i ask we dispense with the reading of the amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: madam president, i think we are waiting for the

senator from utah that wanted to make -- he is not -- well, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: i have five unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and the minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. objection is heard. mr. mccain: until we finish this bill, i don't want anybody doing anything but finishing

this legislation. mr. mccain: i ask the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum call. the senator is recognized. mr. mccain: madam president,

while we are waiting, i believe that one of the senators is coming to the floor for a unanimous consent agreement. i'd like to talk for a minute with my friend from rhode island, the ranking member, about a provision that is being held up unfortunately, and that has got to do with our interpret ers who have literally placed their lives on the line in order to help america and literally again save american lives. that amendment is being held up for extraneous reasons. the senator from new hampshire and i and everybody on a bipartisan basis. and with fervent pleas from people like general david petraeus, general stanley mcchrystal, ambassador ryan crocker -- i will read later on all of these individuals' letters that are almost

wrenching because the words, i believe, of general mcchrystal is not just a regular obligation, it's a moral obligation. are we going to not allow these people to come to the united states that literally laid their lives on the line for us and saved american lives in the view of our military leadership who have testified to that? general petraeus wrote a very compelling letter. all the most respected military and diplomatic leaders have asked for this, and it's being held up for extraneous reasons. so i'm -- i would alert my colleagues that the senator from rhode island and i are going to ask unanimous consent to move to that amendment because 99 -- because there is 99 votes in favor of it. we can't do this. we can't do this to people that

are our allies. what message does it send to anybody who wants to assist the united states military and government, not just the military, and government in carrying out their responsibilities and their missions? we are literally -- if we send the message that we are going to abandon those people, what happens in the next conflict? what happens in afghanistan today? so i hope that any objection would not take place, and i would like to alert my colleagues that in the next 15 or 20 minutes, we will be moving that amendment, asking unanimous consent, and anyone who opposes it, i suggest they come to the floor and be prepared to object. this is -- this is really a matter of what america is all about, and as important as an

amendment that is not connected to that is, i don't know of a higher obligation we have than to care for those who have, as i say for the third time, laid their lives on the line and saved american lives in our pursuit of trying to achieve our goals. so i alert my colleagues that in about 15 minutes, we will be proposing a unanimous consent agreement to pass that amendment. i yield the floor. mr. reed: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: madam president, let me join the chairman. he has very eloquently and passionately described the situation we're in. we have thousands of afghans who have come forward, helped our forces, not just our military forces but our diplomats, our a.i.d. workers. they have been the translators, they have been on the front lines, they have exposed themselves to risk, and many of

them are in danger of retaliation, and what they want and what i think is owed to them is the opportunity to relocate here in the united states. the senator from new hampshire has proposed an amendment, has worked incredibly hard to satisfy objections from many different quarters, both technical and substantive, and has reached i think a very printed approach, which would recognize our obligations to these individuals and would in a very controlled and very careful way allow them to relocate to the united states. i again compliment the chairman for his passionate leadership and the gentlelady from new hampshire for her extraordinary efforts, tireless efforts for the last 24-plus hours. and the other point i want to make -- and it does also echo what the chairman has made. in afghanistan and elsewhere but

particularly afghanistan, if we are going to sustain our presence there, and we must, i believe, we have to be able to recruit additional afghans to help us. and if the message they are getting is that you're going to put your life on the line and when you're no longer useful to them they don't even remember you, they don't -- you know, you are just not even a name, you're just a nobody, we're going to have a difficult, difficult time. and if we can't recruit these highly skilled interpreters and other afghans, our personnel both diplomatic, military and others will be in jeopardy. some of these interpreters were involved with f.b.i. agents who were in the middle of kabul and other places on counterterrorism operations, very dangerous. couldn't do it without these interpreters. and so again i think we have

done and the senator from new hampshire has done the bulk of the work, done good work in getting to the point where we really need to get this passed. and with that, i would yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: mr. president, i'd like to join chairman mccain and ranking member reed in the very eloquent remarks they have provided in support of the special immigrant visa program for afghans who have assisted our men and women on the ground serving in afghanistan. and chairman mccain mentioned the letter from general stanley mcchrystal, and i would just like to read a few sentences from this letter that were sent to all of the members of congress. general mcchrystal says that the u.s. military presence in afghanistan relies on allies who serve as translators, security personnel and in a multitude of other functions. all of these actors are vital to

the u.s. mission. whether they work directly or indirectly with u.s. forces. afghans who serve the united states in nonmilitary capacities are in support of the department of state face serious threats as a result of their service. he goes on to say if this program falls far short of the need, it will have serious national security implications.n similar letters from -- we have gotten similar letters from general nicholson who is currently the general and commander of resolute support of united states forces in afghanistan, ryan crocker, former ambassador in afghanistan has been very eloquent in the need to continue to support this program and make sure that those afghans who have stood with our american soldiers can come to

the united states. i would like, madam president, to ask unanimous consent that these letters and this article from ryan crocker be submitted for the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: thank you. let me just -- as senator reed said, the amendment that we've offered has been very carefully crafted. it's been a compromise among those who had concerns about the program and those of us who believe it's critical that we continue to support it. so this is something that all of those who have been watching this program have now agreed to and i hope that the objection that we're hearing from some that's unrelated i think to this issue can be addressed. but i just want to close with a story that says to me how important this program is. senator mccain and i had the opportunity two years ago to sit

down with a former army captain, a man named matt zoeller and his interpreter, an afghan who had just been allowed into the united states. and when i asked matt zoeller how he met janice and the help that he had provided to him, his response was that they had met basically when he and his unit were under attack from the taliban and that he was knocked out in that attack, and when he woke up, it wasn't he and his unit, fellow members of the military who were dead, but it was the taliban. and they were dead because janice was there and had protected matt and his, the fellow members of his unit. i think that says so much about

how important these interprete interpreters, those who have provided support to our men and women on the ground in afghanistan have been. and what will we say the next time we want somebody to help when we need help in a country where our men and women are fighting, if they can look back and say you didn't keep your word, united states, so why should we help you now? well, this is our opportunity to continue to keep our word, to continue to make sure that those people who helped us in afghanistan, who protected our men and women on the ground there, are able to come to the united states when they are threatened, when their families are threatened, and be safe. so, madam president, i certainly hope that we can work out the objection that we're hearing from some members, and we can support this very carefully

crafted compromise to make sure that we protect those who have helped protect us. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: we're working on the very important defense bill, and i just wanted to take a few minutes to discuss another topic. for some time with the support of the senate majority leader, senator mcconnell, senator merkley and senator paul, and i have all been trying to change federal law so that farmers across the country can secure the green light to grow hemp in america. now, about a year ago i came to the floor of the senate with a basket of hemp products to highlight that this is a particularly important time in the debate, a time in history when we've kind of reflected on what this issue has been about.

and i've talked about how hemp products are made in this country, sold in this country, and consumed in our country, but they are not a hundred percent american products. they can't be fully red, white and blue products because the law says that hemp used to make them cannot be grown on a large-scale basis here at home. so another year has gone by since the majority leader, senator merkley and senator paul and i have teamed up and unfortunately industrial hemp continues to be on the controlled substance list. because of that unjustified status, hard-working farmers in oregon and across our country have been deprived of the opportunity and benefits of a crop that has enormous economic potential all because there has been this misinterpretation that

in some way this is affiliated with marijuana. industrial hemp and marijuana come from the same plant species. someone could say they have a sim are a look -- have a similar look, but they are in fact very, very different in key ways. first and foremost, industrial hemp does not have the psycho active properties of marijuana. you'd have about as much luck getting high by smoking co cottn from a t-shirt as you would by smoking hemp. the hemp ban in my view looks like a case of illegality for the sake of illegality. so four members of the united states senate, including the senate majority leader, want to bring an end to this antihemp

stigma that has in effect been codified in the law. so we have talked about a whole host of hemp products, foods, soap, lotions, supplement, hemp milk. you can even use a hemp product to seal the lumber in a deck. if you just look at the variety of products, the kinds of products i've shown here before, you certainly see the ingenuity of american producers. you see a growing demand of american consumers for hemp products. and my view is our hard-working farmers ought to have the opportunity to meet that demand. unfortunately a hundred percent of the hemp used in the kinds of products that i brought to the floor have to be imported from other countries. so this ban, this ban on hemp,

it's not antidrug policy. it is antifarmer policy. and i've held disbelief and i remember going -- and i've held this belief and i remember going to a cost co., -- costco, madam president, at home when my wife, nancy, was pregnant with our third child, and i saw that there was hemp products available there at the local costco and i announced what was going to be a guiding principle of mine on this. and that is if you can buy it at a local supermarket, the american farmer ought to be able to grow it. quaint idea, but i think if you walked through a coas costco ory other store, you say to yourself must be pretty exasperating for american farmers to not have an opportunity to be part of

generating that set of jobs associated with the ag sector because the jobs are coming from people overseas. now, there has been a bit of progress. the 2014 farm bill puts the first cracks in the federal ban. it okayed growth research projects led by universities and agriculture projects to take a smarter approach to hemp. these projects have proven successful. farmers are ready to grow hemp, but the first cracks in the federal ban do not go far enough, and these projects are still just tied up and tied up and tied up in various spools of red tape. in my view, what's needed is a legislative solution. so what we now have in addition

to the four of us, senators from kentucky, the senator from oregon, we now have a bipartisan group of 12 senators on the industrial hemp farming act. and once and for all, what we would say as a matter of law, let's remove hemp from the schedule one controlled substances list and give a green light to farmers from one end of the country to another who believe they'd like to have a chance to put people to work growing hemp. so i urge my colleagues to reflect on the history of this time to learn more about the safe and versatile crop and the great potential it holds to give a boost to american agriculture and our domestic economy. this is a bipartisan bill, madam president. the senate majority leader, mitch mcconnell, my colleague

from oregon, senator merkley, senator mcconnell's colleague from kentucky, rand paul, the four of us, both senators from oregon, both senators from kentucky, this is common sense, 12 members of the united states are on board. it is time to turn this into law and give our hard-working farmers -- i note the president of the senate here knows a bit about farming. i want to give our farmers another opportunity to generate profit and revenue for their important enterprises in america. i hope my colleagues will support the legislation. with that, madam 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:

quorum call:

mr. reed: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: madam president, may i inquire -- the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call. mr. reed: thank you, madam president. madam president, i would ask unanimous consent to dispense with the calling of the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: madam president, we have been moving very steadily through this authorization bill. i want to once again commend the leadership of chairman mccain. it began, really, months ago when he decided that he was going to do an in-depth analysis of the department of defense, calling upon experts from an extraordinary range of academic, military leaders, diplomatic leaders. and as a result, we became very much knowledgeable -- more so than we did previously -- about

those things within the department that we should look very call ofl call -- we shouldy carefully at, we should review and perhaps change. because of his leadership, this is the most fundamental revision of the goldwater nichols procedures that were adopted three decades ago. and we have spent a lot of time here discussing important issues, but i don't think we have given quite enough credit to the work that the chairman has done and our colleagues have done with respect to some of these important reforms. one area that we've worked together with is to develop statutory authority for cross-functional teams within the office of secretary of defense. one of the challenges that goldwater-nichols faced and faced successfully was to tray to integrate operational units, and they came up with the concept of jointness, which now

we assume has always been there. but it was not the case 30 years ago or 40 years ago. and because of the creation o ofcocons, because of the assignment process and moving forward and having an assignment not just in your branch of service but also in a job that required the integration of other services, that approach meant a significant and fundamental change on the effective operations of military forces today, and we take it for granted. similarly, we want to take that type of approach -- not just in the services and the operational commands, but within the headquarters of the secretary ever defense. so we have organized these cross-functional teams that the secretary, he or she, can adopt.

and these cross-functional teams really exemplify the real mission of the secretary. it's not to organize personnel, not to organize logistics, not to do this. it's to achieve an outcome, which requires every component to work together. and this is just one example of the innovation that is being promoted in this legislation. again, i think it's not only building on goldwater-nichols, it's really going much further and more effectively one of the inspirations for this approach has been done in private industry. private industry faced some of the same challenges that every large institution -- and the department of defense is a large institution. they had lots of functional asian but they didn't -- they had lots of fuptional areas, but

they didn't have a lot of common teams, et cetera. so looking at a birks this model has become prevalent. its delivered priorities on time, even faster than they could do. we hope that this approach will certainly provide a kind of organizational structure and incentives for the department of defense that will make the office of secretary of defense much more efficient. that's one -- just one aspect. and there are other aspects which are critical, too. some of the other aspects involve trying to once again focus research and engineering in one particular focal point of the department of defense. and this is reaction to the phenomenon we've all observed. our technological superiority which we took for granted for decades and decades and decades

is now being slowly eroded because of the research that's going on across the globe, because of the globalization of ideas and information, and all of that -- and so part of our proposal is to have a very centralized figure with significant rank to try and focus on this research and engineering effort. and then other duties in terms of management of the program, operation of the department of defense, in terms of the testing issues, all those things could be sort of coordinated with other elements. and that's another important aspect of this -- of these proposals. and, again, we have spent a decorate deal of time discussing important issues, but we can't -- i think we should not frail to note these important -- i think we should not fail to note

these important changes. then in addition to the structure changes at the department of defense level, you know, we're talking also about creating kind of a much more streamlined structure, organizationally, so we can go ahead and deliver services more aappropriately. in addition, we've worked closely with the joint chiefs of staff to get their input about how the chairman on the joint chiefs can be more effective as the principal advisor to the president of the united states. that is an important change we've made, and we've also been very careful to get the feedback from professionals within the chairman's office so that we are doing things that make sense, that work, that function aappropriately. another aspect that's important to note when we talk about some of these very fundamental

goldwater-nichols reforms, and that aspect is the role of the vice chief of staff -- chias chairman, i should -- vice-chairman, i should say, of the joint chiefs of staff. that person has the responsibility to head the joint retirements committee, the jroc is the acronym. this lays out for all the services what types of equipment they need, what requirements, whether they're fulfilling, whj it be an under-seacraft, whether a new aviation platform. our example, after listening to the numerous experts that came before us, was that the vice-chairman might have been, in a sense, sort of first among equals, but it really was a lot more of consensus decisions

without a focal point of leadership. and what we have done in this legislation is made it clear that the vice-chairman is, indeed, the leader of that group. and so he will have -- or she will have -- someday the ability to make decisions after getting the advice from the other members of the jroc, but it will not be what is perceived today as sort of a quid pro quo between services. you know, the navy might want a particular ship and in turn for that particular ship, they will be amen to believe a proposal by the air force for a particular aviation platform. what you have now is the vice chair will be able, not only as the official of formal head of this, but also as the chief advisor to the chairman, to say, no, we've looked at this, not from the perspective of the service but from the perspective

of the joint chiefs and our role as giving advice to the president so that we could go ahead and give a decision that's not based upon anything else. now, madam president, if i may, i would like to at this juncture call up the reed amendment number 4603. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: is noter from rhode island, mr. reed, for mr. reid of nevada, proposes an amendment numbered 4603. mr. reed: i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: well, thank you, madam president. just let me continue briefly. we are again spending a great deal of time on important you shalls. we've more important issues that will emerge.

but i think it was long overdue to cite what we have done in just a small part under leadership of the chairman to make fundamental changes to the operation of the department of defense, and i'm confident that years from now when they talk about the goldwater-nichols, they will talk about mccain, what the mccain amendments did it what the mccain bill did. and i think that is a fitting tribute to the chairman and also i think it's ultimately what we're all about here it's going to make sure that the men and women who are in the field, who wear the uniform of the united states, have the very best leadership from the secretary's level to the chairman's level all the way down to their platoon and company commander, and i want to make sure we noted that. with that, i would yield the floor.

cane madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: could i say to my very modest friend from rhode island anything that has a mccain name on it has a hyphen and reed name to because what we've accomplished in the senate armed services committee would be absolutely impossible without the partnership that we have. and i cannot express adequately my appreciation for the cooperation and the friendship that we've developed over many years. as i've said, probably 200 times despite his poor education, he is overcome that and has been a very great contributor to -- mr. reed: if the chairman would yield. if i had the opportunity to go to a football school and not an academic institution, i would be better off today. forgive me, mr. chairman. mr. mccain: madam president, hopefully we're going to pass

the resolution concerning that it will allow interpreters to come to the united states under a special program. i've received letters from literally every military leader and diplomatic leader that has served in iraq and afghanistan, and i will ask unanimous consent to put copies of those records -- those letters in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: but i just for the sake of illustration, i'd like to quote from a couple of the letters that i have. one is from general nicholson who is our commander today, a resolute support united states forces in afghanistan. and i won't read the whole letter, but i would like to

quote because i think it's very compelling. general nicholson says, during my previous three tours in afghanistan, i have seen many afghans put themselves and their families at risk to assist our forces in pursuit of stability for their country. the stories of these interpreters and translators are heart wrenching. they followed and supported our troops in combat at great personal risk ensuring the safety and effectiveness of coalition members on the ground. many have been injured or killed in the line of duty, a testament to their commitment, resolve, and dedication to support our interests. continuing our promise of the american dream is more than in our national interest. it is a testament to our decency and long-standing tradition of honoring our allies. i'd like to repeat again general nicholson's last sentence.

continuing our promise of the american dream is more than in our national interest. it's a testament to our decency and long-standing tradition of honoring our allies. i could not put it any better than general nicholson did. finally, i'd like to -- also i'd like to add from general campbell who is his predecessor who said, i'm writing you to express my strongest support for the special immigrant visa program. quote, "since our arrival in afghanistan, u.s. forces have relied upon our afghan partners, especially our linguists who perform -- to perform our mission. they have consistentlien there with us through the most harrowing ordeals, never waiverring in their support of our soldiers, our mission and their own country. many have been injured or killed in the line of duty. unfortunately, their support of our mission has resulted in our

afghan partners facing threats from insurgent groups throughout the country. they frequently live in fear that they or their families will be targeted for kidnappings and death. many have suffered this fate already. the s.i.v. program offers hope that sacrifices on our behalf will not be forgotten. again, two compelling statements. and finally, mr. chairman, i won't go on further because i see the distinguished senator from georgia waiting. i would like to quote from the individual that i think is the finest military leader amongst many outstanding military leaders that i have ever had the opportunity of knowing. and that's from retired scren david petraeus. and it's a letter that he wrote where he says, throughout my time in uniform, i saw how important our in country allies are in the performance of our

missions. many of our afghan allies have not only been mission essential, serving as the eyes and years of our own troops and often saving american lives, they have risked their own and their families' lives in the line of duty. protecting these allies is as much a matter of american national morality as it is american national security. i ask for your help in meeting our obligation by appropriating additional afghan s.i.v.'s to bring our allies to safety in america. so all i can say is i -- and tht is signed "sincerely, david petraeus." both of these three individuals that i just quoted serve mult pal tour -- served multiple tours, not one, not two, sometimes as many as five in iraq and afghanistan over the last 14 years. if any leaders know what the service and sacrifice of these

afghans and iraqis have provided to our military at the very risk and loss of their lives since they're the number one target of the taliban in afghanistan, the number one target, then i hope that my colleagues by voice vote would agree to increase the visa program so that we can allow these people to come to the united states of america. and one thing i'm confident of, mr. president, i'll end with this, some people come to this country that we have some doubts about. their citizenship, their commitment to democracy, their adequacy, the kind of people they are. well, these people have already proven their allegiance to the united states of america because they put their lives on the line. some of them had their family members murdered. so i have no doubt as to what kind of citizens they will be of this country, and i hope that all of my colleagues and i

believe that overwhelming majority of them agree that as general nicholson said in his letter, it's a moral obligation. and i think we'll all feel better after we get this done. i note the presence of probably the most well informed member of the united states senate on budgetary issues, the senator from georgia. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. perdue: first, i want to thank the distinguished senator from arizona, the chairman of armed services and the ranking member senator reed for their tireless work in doing god's work here and that is to making sure that we provide for the needs of our women and men in uniform around the world. mr. president, it's only six reasons why 13 colonies got together in the first place, and one of those six was to provide for the national defense. that's what we're talking about

this week. as we debate the national defense authorization act this week, i personally would like to add a little different perspective to this debate. in my opinion, mr. president, today the world is more dangerous than at any time in my lifetime. we have major threats from various perspectives. number one, we see the rise of traditional rivals, russia and china and ever more aggressiveness from both. we see the rise of isis and networks around the country supporting terrorism, and islamic states. we see the proliferation of nuclear capability among rogue nations like north korea and iran. and we see hybrid warfare, including cyber warfare that's being perpetrated today, mr. president. what we're not talking about is the growing arms race in space. all this adds to a very dangerous world that makes it very mobile and puts people right here in the united states

in danger, as we've seen already. as we face these increasing threats, though, at a very time when we need our military to be strongest, we're disinvesting in our military. you can see from this chart that over the last 30 years or so, we've had three democratic presidents, all have disinvested in the military for different reasons. first, we had president carter. then we had president clinton and now we have president obama. and we've disinvested in this military to a point where today we're spending about 3% of our g.d.p. on our military. that's about $600 billion in round numbers. the 30-year afternoon -- the 30-year average, mr. president, is 4%. that 100 basis point -- one percentage point of difference is $200 billion. $200 billion. what i'm concerned about is as we sit here facing these additional threats today, we have the smallest army since

world war ii, the small etion navy since -- smallest navy since world war i and the oldest and smallest air force ever. the current plan according to the congressional budget office is even worse than that. it says in the next ten years that we will continue to disinvest in our military down to 2.6% of our g.d.p. another estimated hundred billion dollars of reduction. this is a new low that i believe just cannot -- we cannot allow to happen. as we look at our overall defense spending authorization levels today in this ndaa bill, we're falling short of where we need to be based on the threats that we face. don't just take my word for it. secretary bob gates last defense budget that he actually proposed was in 2011. that was the last one proposed before sequestration took place and that was the last defense budget that was actually based on the actual assessment of the threats against our country, not arbitrary budget limitations.

in his estimate at that time for this year, f.y. 2017 was $646 billion. now, as for 2017, our top line is estimated right now of what we're trying to get approved $602 billion. that's a far cry. and by the way, secretary gates' estimate was before isis, before the benghazi attacks on our embassy there, before russia seized crimea, before russia went into the ukraine, before china started building islands in the south china sea. i can go on. so how did we get here? today financially, we've got an absolute financial catastrophe. in the last seven years, we've borrowed about 30% of what we've spent as a federal government. it's projected over the next ten years we will begin borrow about 30% of what we spend as a federal government. my argument has been that we can no longer be just debt hogs. we have to be defense hogs.

by the way, those two can no longer be mutually exclusive. in order to solve the global security crisis, i believe we've got to solve our own financial debt crisis. we all know we have $19 trillion of debt, mr. president, today. what's worse, though, is c.b.o. estimates that's going to grow to $30 trillion over the next decade unless we do something about it. this chart shows a real problem, though, mr. president. right now the problem is not discretionary spending. that's the blue line here, which is actually down from around 2010 of about $1.4 trillion, down to about $1.1 trillion today. so discretionary spending, we may have gotten there in the wrong way. we used sequestration to do that, but i would argue that discretionary spending is not where the major problem is today. the major problem is right here in our mandatory spending. social security, medicare, medicaid, pension and benefits for federal employees and the interest on our debt. we basically have been living in

an artificial world, mr. president, where interest rates have been basically zero. we're paying fewer dollars on federal debt today, fewer dollars than we were in 2000 when our debt was one-third of what it is today. to deal with the global security crisis, mr. president, we need to be honest about what our military needs. that gets difficult sometimes. today we have a national security priorities that aren't getting properly funded and yet we know we're spending money inefficiently. further of all, we've got missions that we're not able to commit or maintain. today take a look at the marine expeditionary units. these are the m.e.u.'s around the world. because of defense cuts, and i've visited these by the way, because of defense cuts, there aren't enough am bibious ships for them to have a theater reserve force also known as effort m.u.'s. crisis response and embassy protection in africa, for example, we now have a special purpose covering this task based

on the ground in marone, spain. i personally visited with those people. the best, i mean the very best of america is in uniform around the world taking care of our business, protecting our interest and our tree dom here at home. even this force in moron, spain, is seeing a cut in their fleet force. they can get 24e78 selves from where they are to the point of crisis very quickly. another example is the recap program, recapitalization for the joint surveillance target attack radar system whore we call jstars. the number-four priority for the air force and a critical priority for isr ground targeting in almost every region of the country or the world. as to the old fleet -- as the old fleet is reaching the end of its service life, we're going to have to have a new fleet come

online quukly. we're seeing a gap projected right now of about 7 years where that capability will no longer be available in full force for the people on the ground in harm's way. we're not able to fund the military, the force size we need either. as a result, we're putting greater pressure on personnel, burning up our troops, putting pressure on families, and elongating our deployments, they spend more time on rotations internationally and not enough time with their families at home, and it is causing problems. causing problems with turnover and families and so forth. and they're not getting the training they need. two-thirds of army units are only training at the squad and platoon levels, mr. president, no the in full combat formations. and we have air force pilots actually leaving the service today because of this a cut back so dramatically on training flights. these examples highlight why we need to scrutinize every dollar we spend on defense so we can

ensure these dollars go to our critical rirlts of protecting our men and women around the world. to that end we need to improve physical accountability to the d.o.d. and highlight the needs we're currently not fulfilling. can you imagine our department of defense has never been audited? even today we cannot dictate to the d.o.d. that they provide an audit. can you imagine wal-mart -- well, the answer is we're too big, we're too complicated. can you imagine wal-mart telling the f.c.c., we're not going to comply with your requirements. the d.o.d. is not that much bigger than wal-mart, mr. president. i think we should withhold funds to the accountable agency until a plan is introduced that would allow the pentagon to keep track of its military equipment. it's been 13 years since the law has been passed and yet they still aren't in compliance. this is all about funding our military. but we've also got to be

responsible. the men and women in uniform on the front lines deserve that. finally, to address the critical need we discussed earlier, senator isakson and i -- this is jstars -- have been working to get the replacement fleet going sooner than later to eliminate this gap. this fleet must get online faster than the current plan or we face a potential seven-year gap. i'm committed to ensuring we have what we need to support our servicemen and women around the world. these efforts will help make the pentagon accountable and focus funds on critical priorities. this is about setting the right priorities, not just here at home in the military but also with other domestic programs and mandatory expenditures. this debate is all about setting the right priorities to make sure that we can do what the constitution calls us to do and that's provides for the national defense. the national debt crisis and our global security crisis are interlocked inextricably. we are not going to solve the

dilemma of providing for national defense until we solve this national debt crisis. our servicemen and servicewomenn and our combatant commanders do not have and will no the have the training and preemtion that they -- training and preparation that they need to face growing threats. it is time that washington faces up to this crisis. this is not just a the n.d.a. this about the defense of our country and the future of our very way of life. we have to come to grips with this ndaa, pass it and find a way to address this debt crisis so that every year going forward we don't have this draw ma of finding a way to -- of drama of find way to fund our military to prk our country. we have to set the right priorities to defend our country. thank you, mr. president. i yield back and i note the -- i'm sorry, will you be speaking? okay, i yield back. thank you.

mrs. ernst: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mrs. ernst: for more than 23 years i had the great honor of serving in the army reserve and national guard. it was during this time i was able to gain a firsthand experience of working alongside the unbelievable men and women in uniform whose character, honor, and love of our country has led them to sacrifice so selflessly for it.

during my time in the military, i had the honor of serving a tour in kuwait and iraq. as a company commander during "operation iraqi freedom," what was so important to me, other than bringing everyone home, was ensuring my troops received what they needed when they needed it. unfortunately, given the nature of war and the learning curve our military had in its first large-scale military deployment since operation desert shiel shield/desert storm, that did not always happen. as the war went on, our military adapted and our troops were able to receive the equipment they needed to do the job. even though i am now retired from the military, i still have the privilege of serving our men and women in uniform just in a different capacity, as a united states senator and a member of the armed services committee.

it has been an honor to work with chairman mccain, ranking member reed and the other distinguished members of the committee on another vital annual defense bill. over the past year, my colleagues and i have worked to produce a bill which enhances the capabilities of our military to face current and future threats. this bill will impart much-needed efficiencies in the department of defense, which will result in saving american taxpayer dollars and allow the department to provide greater support to our war fighters through eliminating unnecessary overhead, streamlining department functions, reducing unnecessary general officer billets and modernizing the military health care system. furthermore, we have found ways to enhance the capabilities of our war fighters, ensuring our

troops have the training opportunities in order to be prepared to execute their assigned missions. this means more rotations to national training centers and more effective home station training for our troops who are being sent into harm's way around the world. our military leaders have stressed that readness is their top -- their top priority. adequately funding their requests for readiness keeps faith with our service members and ensures our men and women in uniform have the best chance to come them to their loved ones. however, while we have adequately funded the department's readiness needs, sequestration has led us to prioritize readiness over d.o.d. modernization. i believe this is a risky proposition with respect to ensuring our service members

will have the advanced equipment, vehicles, ships, and aircraft to confront technologically advanced adversaries, like russia and china, in a potential future conflict. unfortunately, i believe many have taken our decades' long technological dominance for granted. if we continue to fail to adequately fund modernization, our service members may pay the price for that decision with their lives. -- something none of us want. while i fully agree with the need to identify and reduce government spending and especially to eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse in the d.o.d., we also must ensure funds are allocated in the proper areas so our troops have the resources they need, so they are not outclassed by our adversaries

who are currently modernizing their capabilities with aims to defeat our country in a potential conflict. due to sequestration and the bipartisan budget act, this bill is short of what our troops need to defend our country, and -- in this year and in upcoming and future years. i believe that's important to keep in mind while we consider this bill. i was sloir disappointed that the senate -- i was sorely disappointed that the senate did not come together in a bipartisan fashion and stop shortchanging our troops and their families through the arbitrary caps set through sequestration. that was a missed opportunity. the threats the nation and our troops face are too great for partisan bickering, shortsightedness, and the abdication of one of our core responsibilities, which is to

provide for our military. i'd also lake to talk about just -- i'd also like to talk about just a few of the provisions included in the ndaa, which i crafted. during the process, i was able to author nearly two dozen provisions ranging from improving the professional i am of military judge advocates and military intelligence professionals to making retaliation against sexual assault victims its own crime to enhancing d.o.d. program management. as i've stated repeatedly, one area of focus for me is working to prevent sexual assault in the military. and while we have seen progress, there are still steps that must be taken to improve the system and the overall culture. one of my provisions would help enhance the military prosecutors and j.a.g.s to better ensure victims of sexual assault and

other crimes can know their case is in good, well-trained and experienced hands. also included in this bill is a provision i authored with senator mccal skill of missouri, which combats retaliation within our military. we cannot allow any retaliation against survivors who come forward seeking justice, and this provision will work to curb the culture of retaliation in our ranks. other provisions i've pushed included the committee report seek to bring greater military intelligence support to our war fighters by ending growth in headquarters elements and pushing that support from those headquarters' elements down those military intelligence units providing direct support to our war fighters, not only do these report language provisions seek to enhance support to our men and women defending our

troops on the front lines but would also provide safeguards which will help ensure your taxpayer dollars are being spent properly within the d.o.d. this bill also includes my program management improvement accountability act, which is a bipartisan piece of legislation that solves problems with program and program management that have plagued the federal government for decades, especially in the department of defense. we have read about these failures in the media, in i.g. reports, and the g.a.o. high-risk list. many projects are grossly over budget, delayed, or do not meet previously stated goals. ultimately, by strengthening its program management policies, the d.o.d. and other federal agencies will better account for and utilize taxpayer dollars.

it will also improve its ability to complete projects on time and on budget, which leads to getting our troops the advanced equipment and equipment they need as soon as possible. in closing, mr. president, i want to again thank my colleagues for their work on this bill. but, most of all, i want our men and women in uniform to know that we stand with them in their defense of this great country and all that it stands for. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: plop? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. donnelly: mr. president, as we continue to debate this year's national defense authorization act on the floor this week, i want to take a few minutes as the ranking member of the armed services strategic forces subcommittee to

discussion provisions of the bill that relate to our nation's nuclear deterrent and nonproliferation programs, missile defense, and space programs. i want to start by thanking all members of the strategic forces subcommittee for putting in another year of hard work. i'd especially like to thank our subcommittee chairman, my colleague from alabama, senator sessions, for the strong partnership we have built over the past few years leading this committee together. i want my colleagues to note that senator sessions and his staff worked closely together with me and my staff in developing elements of the bill pertaining to the strategic forces subcommittee. together with her colleagues, we have built bipartisan consensus on some of the most important issues in this bill. no small feat when we are talking about things like nuclear weapons and defending against missile threats from

iran and north korea. i'd also like to thank the tremendous professionals on our staff, both republican and democratic, whose expertise and dedication to serving the national interest are essential to this bill's success. in developing the base language for the ndaa, the strategic forces subcommittee held five hearings and a number of briefings on topics ranging from nuclear policy and deterrence to missile defense to protecting our satellites in space during a time of increasing threats from potential adversaries who seek to exploit the fragile nature of these assets. in the area of nuclear forces, our subcommittee has prioritized the need to update our nation's nuclear command and control

infrastructure to ensure our ability to communicate with our nuclear forces in a time of national crisis. we've also examined the role of our nation's deterrence policy towards russia and made available $28 million to shore up our nato nuclear mission over and above the funding for the european reassurance initiative. these funds will help provide much-needed upgrades to the readiness of our dual-capable aircraft and other activities to exercise our nuclear mission in support of nato. within the department of energy's national nuclear security administration we continue to full little authorize the w-76 submarine missile warhead life extension program where upwards of two-thirds of our deterrent will exist upon full implementation of the new start treaty. we also continue to life extend

the b-61 gravity bomb in support of our nato allies, and we have fully authorized the life extension of the w-80 cruise missile warhead which will support the air leg of our triad. the subcommittee has continued full support for the nunn-lugar cooperative threat reduction program which marks its 25th anniversary this year. and i would like to thank senator lugar and senator nunn for their extraordinary service to this nation. this program as indicated, made from my fellow hoosier and predecessor, senator richard lugar, combats nuclear proliferation by helping detect nuclear materials crossing borders and keep it out of the hands of terrorists. in addition to work with nuclear

material, the program also addresses biological threats, helping other nations secure dangerous pathogens. in the case of the ebola epidemic, the program was able to help the 101st airborne division develop rapid field diagnostics to quickly screen infected patients from those who simply had a fever unrelated to the disease. many have credited this program's quick response combined with the capabilities of the 101st airborne with reversing the tide of the ebola epidemic before it spread to large cities. in the area of cutting-edge hypersonic systems, the bill provides full funding for programs like conventional prompt strike that even the global playing field on hypersonic system development. according to public reports,

russia and china are prioritizing the development of hypersonic weapons and making troubling progress relative to our own. if we are to maintain our nation's technological edge over our potential adversaries, we need to invest in this critical area of research and development. while the house authorizes and appropriators have also fully funded conventional prompt strike, i am surprised and troubled to see that the senate appropriations committee has proposed cutting this program by almost half. i hope to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address this issue and restore full funding to conventional strike in the coming months. in the area of electronic warfare, our subcommittee has required the commander of u.s. strategic command to coordinate

and develop joint execution plans to operate and fight in a domain that includes electronic jamming and other means that disrupt our fragile electronic systems. russia has a long-established doctrine in this area, but ours has been lacking. this provision will help reverse that trend. in the area of missile defense, the subcommittee has full little authorized the president's budget request for the missile defense agency and authorized additional funding for key development areas including the redesigned kill vehicle, the multiobject kill vehicle and it improved ground-based interceptor booster. the ndaa also requires a review of d.o.d.'s strategy and capabilities for countering cruise and ballistic missiles before they are launched. and it directs the m.d.a. to conduct a flight test of the

g.m.d. system at least once each fiscal year. the bill provides funding above and beyond the president's budget request for our collaborative missile defense programs with israel, including iron dome, david sling and arrow. given the threat posed by iran's growing ballistic missile arsenal, i believe these programs require additional funding, particularly for procurement-related to david sling and the arrow systems. these programs are more important than ever and have my full support. in the area of space, the ndaa addresses a number of important issues related to our critical satellite-based capabilities. this week we commemorated the 72nd anniversary of d-day. anyone who knows the history of the normandy invasion knows how kreurlt a role whether --

critical a role weather forecasting can play in the success or failure of a mission. this year's bill pays close attention to d.o.d.'s ability to provide weather data to our troops around the world, particularly in centcom's area of responsibility. our current fleet of weather satellites is aging and our subcommittee has taken d.o.d. to task for its failure to adequately plan for the upcoming gap in cloud cover data over the indian ocean. whether we're talking about g.p.s., weather, surveillance or communications, our nation's space-based capabilities are fundamentally dependent on our ability to get to space. there's no question we must maintain the ability to send national security satellites into space with launch systems that are affordable and, above all, supremely reliable. we learned a hard lesson on

reliability in the late 1990's when we lost three national security satellites to launch failures. those failures cost the taxpayer more than $3 billion and lost our nation a critical communications capability we didn't replace for more than a decade. subsequently years of monopoly and d.o.d. space launch taught us a hard lesson about the necessity of competition to keep costs down. while we all agree on the need to maintain what's known as assured access to space, how we best meet that goal has become the topic of heated debate, particularly since our deteriorating relationship with russia put a spotlight on the fact that d.o.d. uses russian rocket engines in many of its space launches. we need to end our nation's reliance on russian engines. with the -l development of an

american-made alternative. we have studied the facts on this issue in painstaking detail on the strategic forces subcommittee for not just months, but years. the fact is if we want to end our reliance on russian engines without jeopardizing the reliability and affordability that are essential to a successful launch program, it's going to take another few years. i'm not satisfied with that. i want to see it happen faster. in the meantime, though, we have to take seriously the warnings of our military and intelligence community that eliminating access to the rd-180 engine prematurely before a replacement is ready to fly would seriously undermine our national security interests. as it currently stands, the ndaa would ban the use of rd-180 engines years before a

replacement is ready and instead rely on a more expensive delta rocket to fill the gap. i respect the careful thought behind this proposal and the effort to ensure we don't create a capability gap. ultimately this approach, though, would cost the taxpayer an additional $1.5 billion and divert funds from developing an american-made replacement engine and launch system to paying for these more expensive delta launches. at a time when we continue to face budgetary challenges in defense and domestic spending, this is a cost and a risk we don't need. with that in mind, i support the bipartisan amendment number 4509 offered by my colleague, senator nelson and senator gardner. this amendment grants d.o.d. access to only those russian engines it needs between now and 2022, when the department has said a replacement will be

ready. i believe this is the most responsible approach to a very difficult issue. let me close by again thanking senator sessions for the productive and bipartisan relationship we have had on this subcommittee. i'd also like to thank our full committee chairman, senator mccain, and our ranking member, senator reed, for their leadership and their dedication to strengthening our national security and caring for our military. i look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation and to see it signed into law. mr. president, i yield back any remaining time that's been allotted. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: it the assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, almost a year ago exactly, i met with a remarkable woman. she was wise, gracious and funny. i think what struck me the most about her was her idealism.

cassandra butts believed that all men and women are created equal, and she spent her entire working life trying to expand that promise. on the day we met, her nomination to serve as u.s. ambassador to the bahamas had been blocked for more than a year for reasons entirely unrelated to her qualifications. that didn't make her cynical. it didn't diminish her desire to serve. she just wanted to know if there was anything she could do to help. it was typical. ca sand a butts -- cassandra butts asked the question how can i help? sadly, miss butts will never receive the votes she deserved on her nomination to be ambassador. she died a little over a week ago at the far too young age of 50. she felt ill for a few days, had seen a doctor and died peacefully in her sleep before learning of her diagnosis, acute leukemia. cassandra butts was a long-time friend of president obama and

first lady michelle obama. ms. butts and the future president met during their first days at the hazard law school at the financial aid. neither one of them came from families that could write checks for tuition. in a statement mourning her passing, the president and first lady remembered miss butts and said -- quote -- a citizen, always pushing, always doing her part to advance the causes of opportunity, civil rights, development and democracy, end of quote. cassandra, the obamas wrote, was someone who put her hands squarely on that arc of the moral universe and never stopped doing whatever she could to bend it toward justice. they continued -- "to know cassandra butts was to know someone who made you want to be better." miss butts began her distinguished career in public service about a year after graduating law school. she worked as legal counsel to u.s. senator harris wofford. after that she went to the education fund following in the steps of justice thurgood

marshall. she returned to capitol hill in 1996 as a senior advisor to dick gephardt and the house policy committee. from 2004-2008, she served as senior vice president for domestic policy at the center for american progress, with few breaks in service to help her old friend. when barack obama was elected to the senate in 2004, cassandra butts was there, helping him to get his office up and running. later she helped her old friend, the president, launch his historic presidential campaign. when he won, cassandra butts was there again to offer advice on transition. she stayed on to serve the president as deputy white house counsel. among the lasting marks she leaves on our democracy, cassandra butts helped shepherd through this senate the nomination of the first latina ever to serve on the u.s. supreme court, justice sonia sotomayor. miss butts was a remarkably humble person, especially for one who worked so close to

power. she left the white house in november, 2009, to serve as senior advisor at the millennium challenge corporation. during her time there, she kept an exhausting schedule, traveling to some of the poorest places on earth, searching for innovative ways to use america's leadership and engin iewity to help lift desperately poor people, especially women and children, out of crushing poverty. it really saddens me that miss butts never had the opportunity to serve as ambassador because she could have had so many ideas that she would have brought to represent america's values and help the people of the bahamas. she had hoped that her being an african woman to help underscore america's commitment to equality. while she waited for a vote on her nomination, cassandra butts represented our nation well on a world stage in a different capacity. she served with distinction as a senior advisor to the u.s. mission to the united nations. accounts of her life will always lead off with the fact that she was a close friend of the

president and first lady, but that was only part of the story. cassandra butts was a friend to countless people around the world, from the famous to the voiceless. she was a seeker of truth and justice. she was also warm and funny, smart and passionate, deeply decent. she loved jazz, the u.n.c. tar heels, fast cars, especially her b.m.w. she left this world too soon and she will be missed. loretta and i wish to extend our condolences to her many friends and family, many her mother, her father, her sister, brother-in-law, frank abbott, her two nephews who she adored, awfned and -- austin and ethan. mr. president, it is a sad reality as i stand here today and pick up this publication on the desk of every senator, the executive calendar of the senate of the united states and turn to look at it closely, i find in this calendar on page 5 the name

of cassandra butts waiting for the senate to approve her position as the ambassador to the bahamas. she waited and waited and waited and eventually she passed away waiting on the senate calendar to serve this country. when the senators who had a hold on her for all this period of time were asked why, why did you hold up this woman? one of them was very candid. he said we knew she was close to the president, and if we stopped her, we knew the president would feel the pain. i hope today we all feel the pain that this lady can no longer have the distinction of ending her fabulous public career as our ambassador representing the united states in the bahamas. mr. president, i yield the floor.

ms. ayotte: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: thank you, mr. president. today i come to the senate floor to talk about an issue that i worked on for a number of years and something i feel very strongly about, and that is our detention and intear baition policy, and since this administration has gotten into office based on a campaign promise, the president has sought to close guantanamo, and this administration has continued to release individuals held at guantanamo, dangerous terrorists with backgrounds whether it's involvement with al qaeda or involvement with the taliban or other groups, and just recently they have released

another 11 individuals from guantanamo. and one of the issues that has troubled me most about this is that it's really important, i think, that the american people know what's going on, but so much of this is happening in the cloak -- the cloak of darkness, and so much of it is an unwillingness of this administration to level with the american people about the terrorist affiliations and activities of current and former guantanamo detainees. and we've seen the most recent example of that, which is troubling. on march 23 of 2016, paul lewis, the special envoy for guantanamo detention closure, testified before the house foreign affairs committee that there have been americans that have died because of guantanamo