the 6002.2 authorization bill sets policy and funding level for the defense department and includes language that would require women to register for the draft and would make it harder for president obama to close the guantanamo bay detention center. we expect a vote on final passage of the bill in about an hour. this is live coverage on c-span2.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. o god of mountains, stars, and boundless spaces, to you we lift our hearts with gratitude for your mercy and grace. you are the source of our hope and strength, for we receive guidance from your faithfulness. protect our senators with

shields of honor and integrity, as they put their hope new. -- hope in you. may they patiently wait for the unfolding of your loving providence, remembering that our times are in your hands. lord, give them the wisdom to bless every good deed, by whomsoever it may be done, rising above strife and division to a unity that heals. may they seek you with such intensity that they will experience the joy of your continuous presence. we pray in your holy name. amen.

the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge f allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., june 14, 2016. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable joni ernst, a senator from the state of iowa, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: orrin g. hatch, president pro tempore. mr. mcconnell: madam president in. the presiding officer: the -- the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: the terrorist attack in orlando continues to horrify our country much the

f.b.i. and our intelligence community will determine whether that terrorist was in direct contact with isil or inspired by isil. either way, this much we know already: isil is a disgusting group that crucifies children, enslaves women, and throws gay men to their death from rooftops. it is determined to continue exporting its signature brand of inhumanity to our country. the principal way we can prevent isil-inspired or directed attacks is to defeat isil. the president has led a campaign intended to contain isil, which has been insufficient to prevent the attacks in paris or brussels or inspired attacks such as in san bernardino. we need to do what we can to fight back now to prevent more hardbreak like we saw this -- heartbreak like we saw this weekend. that means, for instance, better

preparing this administration and the next one, regardless of party, to deal with threats like isil, and we can do so by passing the national defense authorization act before us. it will provide our men and women in uniform with more of the tools they need to take on these threats. it will strengthen our military posture. in short, it will enhance our ability to take on the challenges currently facing us and better prepare us for those we'll face in the future. all while supporting our soldiers with better benefits, improved health care, and the pay raises they've earned. i want to thank the senators from both sides who've worked dill jntsly to move -- diligently to move this bill forward. that gratitude extends most deeply to the chairman of the armed services committee. senator mccain has been unwavering in his support for our in uniform. he also understands man's

capacity for inhumanity better than most of us and that's why he's so dedicated to taking on these threats. he knows that passage of this bill will present a serious and necessary step towards a safer country that we all want. because, look, we're a nation at war, but we're a nation under attack. we need to continue taking action to protect our country. this bill will send a strong signal to the men and women in uniform. it will send a strong signal to our allies. it will send a strong signal to our adversaries. we need to pass it, and we need to pass it today. and we'll have other opportunities this week to keep our country safe and to take on terrorism. we need to defeat, not contain, isil, and we need the tools necessary to take down terrorists inspired by its brutal ideology. the appropriations bill we're about to consider offers important opportunities to continue this debate.

we need to be able to better address the threat of lone wolf terrorists. we need to be able to connect the dots of terrorist communications in order to disrupt their plans. republicans have offered ideas to take action in areas like these. the underlying bill which passed unanimously out of committee will advance a lot of important priorities like funding for agencies like the f.b.i. to fight terrorism and funding designed to help defend against cybersecurity threats. chairman shelby and ranking member mikulski worked diligently to advance this bill out of committee and bring it to the floor. members should work with these bill managers if they have ideas they think would make the bill stronger. i mentioned some of them already. we've made important progress on appropriations bills so far this year. we can continue that progress this week and take further steps to keep our country safe from terrorism.

the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: throughout history in times of crisis and tragedy, the american people look to leaders for one thing -- leadership. americans don't want to hear excuses. we don't want to hear self-congratulations. we don't want to hear scapegoating. it's a very simple concept: we want our leaders to lead. in the aftermath of sunday's shooting at the pulse nightclub in orlando, florida, a place of

celebration for the lgbt community, donald trump proved that he is a terrible leader, as he is a terrible businessman. trump proved he is not the person to lead our nation through difficult times, or in fact any time. trump failed the most important of tests for a presidential candidate: how to respond in a crisis when our citizens are you under attack. how do you respond? donald trump failed that test. he proved he is not commander in chief material -- undersigned, underscored. but yet -- i'm sorry. but -- so it doesn't matter what the problem has been. trump has failed. trump isn't the person we want to have his finger on the nuclear button, because he's clearly incapable of that responsibility. that's just not me saying it.

even the injure senator from florida -- seen the junior senator from florida has questioned whether he can trusted with such a decision. it hasn't stopped senator rubio or many other republicans from endorsing trump for the highest office in the land. there's absolutely no question -- none -- donald trump is not capable enough or experienced enough for this high level of responsibility. we expect more from a commander in chief. here's how trump responded to sunday's massacre -- classic trump. within hours of the shooting, trump first congratulated himself -- congratulated himself -- and then began to immediately denigrate muslim-americans. trump then suggested our president and one of secretary's aides may be in lead with the

terrorists. donald trump suggested that president obama and one of secretary cline it un's aides may be in lead with islamic terrorists. is this outrageous? of course it is. it is outrageous for donald trump to suggest that the president of the united states, our commander in chief, would support terrorists and the murder of innocent americans. but yesterday, one day after the mass shooting in modern -- it is the worst in modern american history -- trump, the standard-bearer for the republican party, went even further. trump was hateful, he was vicious, he was donald trump. everything that republicans knew him to be when they made him the party's nominee. donald trump used his remarks to foment hatred against millions of innocent americans, based solely on what?

on their religion. he denigrated muslim-americans, all 8 million of them. the republican nominee suggests that all muslim-americans are complicit in this, that they, muslim-americans -- listen to this one, this is a direct quote -- "know what's going on" -- close quote. trump also renewed his call for a ban on all muslims coming in the united states. trump's speech washings as one news outlet called it "a dangerous mix of ignorance and arrogance." close quote. if you are the parent of a muslim-american, how do you explain his speech to your child? if you're not a muslim parent, how do you explain trump's speech to your child? you can't. how do you look your son or daughter in the eye and explain that a man running for president is telling your classmates to be

suspicious of you, to doubt your loyalty to this country based upon your religion? solely on your religion, purely on your religion. you can't explain it. i can't explain it. it's not possible to explain. because this level of hate is not comprehensible. it's incomprehensible that any presidential nominee would foster and promote systematic bigotry, as trump often does. it's reprehensible and un-american for the nominee of any major party or any party to declare millions of americans guilty until proven innocent based on their religion. these are frightening times and trump's pair noiio is make -- nature noiia is making us -- paranoia is make us feel less saivment already there have been

threats against muslims all across the country. donald trump's rhetoric is encourage this scary behavior. what we have seen from trump in the two days since the shooting is rank and its reckless. no one should be surprised. this is vintage donald trump. contrast his actions with the response from our nation's muslim communities. muslim leaders all over america were some of the first to condemn this attack and rally in support of the lgbt community. and the muslim community has taken part of the blood drive to help the victims of the attack as they always step forward. while americans within the muslim and lgbt communities are trying to unite america as an afp math of sunday -- aftermath of sunday's shooting, donald trump is doing just the opposite. he's doing what he's so good at

doing: dividing. and then in the wake of this awful massacre, trump tried to cast himself as a friend to the lgbt community. how about that? but it didn't take minutes for a spokesman for the human rights campaign, the nation's largest gay rights groups, stating that trump is -- quote -- "no friend of the community." what does it say about the republican party, that they're endorsing this vile man? it doesn't say much. what does it say about republican senators that they're backing trump for president? not much. what does it say about senate republican leadership, about the senate republican leader that he's supporting trump? not much. every time the senior senator from kentucky reaffirms his commitment to support trump, he's validating trump's behavior. he's giving credence to donald trump's rabid anti-everything speech, his anti-american stances against women, women,

latinos, blacks, people with disabilities, immigrants, veterans and others. if they -- the senators i've mentioned -- accept this kind of rhetoric as part of our political dialogue, they're all guilty of normalizing hatred. senate republicans are doing just that. when the leader of a major party is promoting unhinged conspiracy theories and calling for hatred against his fellow americans based solely on their religion, we're in dangerous and uncharted waters. we must make clear that donald trump does not speak for us. i'm trying to do that. we must stand arm in arpbl with our muslim -- arm in arm with our muslim allies who have been victims of terrorism by single radicals, not in my name. not in my name. and remember, muslims around the world are helping us defeat the terrorist attacks.

who has suffered so much because of this crazy brand of hatred, who has suffered more than anyone else? muslims. we don't know how many are dead in iraq following the invasion. half a million. we know at least 300,000 in syria. muslims. we must stand arm in arm with our muslim allies around the world who have been victims of this terrorism. any republican cherishes american values of religious freedom and tolerance should immediately do the same. say not in my name. republican senators should say not in my name. republicans must do what they

have -- they must do what they haven't had the courage to do. stand up to trump and say no more. stop it. he's not a leader. he's unfit to be our president, unfit to stand for the values upon which this great country was founded. as for the republican leader in the senate, senator mcconnell, should be the first to condemn trump's hateful rhetoric and reject his presidential candidacy. let's hope the senior senator from kentucky can bring himself to do just that and do it soon. mr. president, -- madam president, what is the business of the day? the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order the senate will resume consideration of s. 2943 which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 469, s. 2943, a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2017 for military

activities of the department of defense, and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 11:00 a.m. will be equally divided between the two managers or their designees.

mr. reed: madam president 1234. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: is a quorum call in place? the presiding officer: it is not. mr. reed: i withdraw amendment 463. the presiding officer: the amendment is withdrawn. a senator: madam president, i call up amendment number 4670. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from florida, mr. nelson, proposed an amendment numbered 4670 to amendment number 4607. mr. nelson: madam president, i ask consent that the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. nelson: madam president, i just want to make a comment. i just want to thank the leaders of our armed services committee to work out what had been a difficult situation going forward with regard to assured access to space over a six-year period starting in fiscal year 2017 and going through fiscal year 2022. we have been able to work this out, and that is the subject of the amount i have just called up. thank you, madam president. mr. mccain: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: does that complete work on the amendment? the presiding officer: the amendment is now pending, senator.

the amendment is the pending business. mr. mccain: i just want to say to the senator from florida, i thank him for his intermediary work and his effort to reach this compromise. he brings unique credentials to this issue given his experience up in space, although some have argued that he's never returned, i don't agree with that, with that assessment. and i want to -- but seriously, i want to thank the senator from florida for his intermediary work without whom this compromise will not have been achieved. and i know that the senator from florida shares my commitment to freeing this nation from dependency on the use of russian rocket engines which then provides an economic boost, in

some cases millions of dollars to vladimir putin and his cronies. i want a special note of appreciation to the senator from florida. mr. nelson: if the senator will yield, madam president, i just want to thank him for his comments. indeed some folks wish that i remember still in orbit -- some folks wish that i were still in orbit. i want you to know that i have great affection and great respect for the chairman of our committee and for him and the senator from alabama to be reasonable in finding an accommodation about this so that this country would have assured access to space. certainly the senator from illinois, as the ranking member of that defense appropriations

subcommittee likewise has all been in the mix, and i am very grateful that this issue is behind us and we can move on. i might note there is one technical change that we will have to make in the conference committee. it is technical in nature, but it is necessary to get the language right. and i thank the chairman of our committee. mr. durbin: would the senator yield for a question? mr. nelson: the senator from arizona has the floor. mr. durbin: if i could ask for the floor for two minutes. i want to thank the senator from florida for his leadership on this issue. it has been a contentious, in some ways divisive issue between appropriations and authorization committees in the united states senate. when senator nelson told p me that he was willing to step up and try to be that bridge over troubled waters, i welcomed his entry into that conversation. i want to thank him, senator

gardner, senator bennet, senator cochran, senator shelby, senator mccain and all who have engaged in this. i think we've come to the right place where we're going to be promoting competition, which is good for taxpayers, and we're going to also be doing it in a way to protect our national security interests. thank you to the senator from florida for his leadership on this issue. mr. mccain: madam president, a vote is scheduled for 11:00 this morning, and we will be voting on the defense authorization bill. unfortunately we have a situation where on the objections of a senator or senators, that their amendment is not allowed because of the objections of another senator. in other words, we now have a

situation where there are senators in the united states senate that it's either their way or the highway. and if they're not -- have an amendment that's agreed to, then they will object to other senators' amendments no matter whether those amendments have any validity or any support. in fact, there's one that -- there's a number of them but one that particularly bothers me which will probably cost the lives of some brave men -- and they're mostly men, but maybe some women who assisted us as interpreters in afghanistan. they're on the list. the senator from south carolina pointed out that the night letters that go to the interpreters that they're going to be killed, they and their families, for cooperating with our military and our civilians

who are over there whose work does save lives. the senator from south carolina has been there many, many, many times, has worked with these interpreters, so i'll let him speak on this issue. but this is really -- by not allowing this amendment where the vote would probably be 99-1 because we reached an agreement with the chairman of the judiciary committee and also with senator sessions, we're unable, we're unable to provide for the ability of these interpreters to come to the united states because of an unrelated amendment. i say to my colleagues, that's not the way the senate should operate. each amendment should be judged on its own merits and demerits and debated and voted on. so this practice -- and we're about to see it on a managers' package now, from the other side because their amendment is being

objected to, that we don't move forward with legislation which literally is going to cause the loss of innocent people's lives whose only crime is they have cooperated and assisted the united states of america and our military in carrying out their duties in afghanistan. that, to me -- that, to me, is a shameful chapter. it's a shameful comment on the united states of america in honoring our commitments to the brave people who helped us and literally saved american lives. i would ask my colleague from south carolina who actually has dealt with these people on many, many occasions what his view is on this particular issue. mr. graham: thanks, senator mccain. i want to put this issue and what we're trying to do in context of what's happened in the last couple of days and what i think is going to happen in

the future. number one, there is strong bipartisan support to increase the number of visas available to afghans who have actively helped us end the war against the taliban and al qaeda in afghanistan. the reason this is so important, it is impossible for america to defend herself without partners. for those who suggest you can end the war against radical islam you -- without partners yu have no idea what you're talking about. for those who suggest you can come to this country to protect lives, then you don't understand the war at all. this is radical islam against the world, not just the islamic faith. the world should be at war with radical islam. as to what happened in florida,

there is no doubt in my mind that these young people were killed by a radical islamic sympathizer because they were gay. and radical islam -- in the radical islam world, gay people are sentenced to death just simply for being gay. they're thrown off the roofs of homes by isil inside of syria and iraq. so don't make any mistake about it. the reason these people were killed is because radical islam judges them to be unworthy of life. please make no mistake about it that radical islamists would kill everybody in this chamber because we won't bend to their will in terms of religion. please make no mistake about it, most people in the faith are not buying p what these nut jobs are saying. i've been to iraq and afghanistan 37 times, and i can tell you thousands have died fighting radical islam in iraq, in syria, in afghanistan because they don't want to live under

the thumb of religious nazis. so the thousands who have helped us as interpreters, who have gone outside the wire with us to make us more effective fighting force, they have literally risked their lives and their families' lives, if we don't give them an out, an exit, they're going to get killed, and it's going to be hard to have anybody help you in the future. i have told senator lee, who i have a strong disagreement with about his approach to the war -- basically saying an american citizen has to be treated as a common criminal, as an enemy combatant if they're collaborating with the enemy. we have our differences, but i have removed my objection with the understanding that i get a vote on my amendment -- the heitkamp amendment, the ex-im bank amendment where thousands are losing their jobs.

but we're not voting on any of this. the managers' package is not being voted upon. so this is a low point right now. there's a lot of serious business being conducted on the floor of the senate that can't move forward because individuals have decided, if i don't get everything i want, nobody is going to get anything. so the bottom line is, the managers' package should move forward. there are a lot of good things in that package. there is a resolution in the package, a sense of the senate resolution, coauthored by senator jack reed and myself, urging president obama to keep the 9,800 american troops in afghanistan until conditions war rant their -- warrant their withdrawal, that if h decides to keep the force in place, we support him. if we go below9,800, things are going to fall apart. i have been trying to fight a washings not a crime. for -- a war, not a crime.

i have been suggested that the difference between a war and a crime is important. the f.b.i. closed the file on this man because they didn't have enough evidence to charge him with a crime. my goal is to prevent terrorist attacks, not respond to them. here's the world that i would like to construct: that if by your actions, not by being a muslim or being this or being that, if by the way you behave and the way you act and the way you talk and the way you engage, you should be treated differently. if you're expressing sympathy to isil and other radical islamic groups, if you threaten your coworkers telling them that your family is a member of al qaeda, if you're associated with a known terrorist and you attend a mosque that's trying to radicalize people, the f.b.i. should never close the file until they're sure you're not a threat in terms of attacking our homeland. that's the difference between fighting a war and fighting a

crime. i am trying to prevent the next attack, not respond to it. this is not a gun control issue, folks. if gun control could protect the gun from attacks by radical islamists, there would be no paris. the french have the strongest gun laws on the planet and over 100 french citizens died at the hands of radical islamists using weapons, bombs, planes, guns. it's not the instrumentality, it's the attitude. so this is not a gun control problem. we're at war and we're treating it like a crime. on the republican side, this is not about banning all muslims. this man was an american citizen born if queens. this idea of shutting america off to everybody in the muslim faith makes it harder to win the war, not easier. we need partners in the faith to destroy radical islam. it is through that partnership that we'll make america safe.

so when people call for gun control, you don't understand what's going on here. this is not a gun control issue. if it were, there would be a tax deduction in europe. this is -- there would be no attacks in europe. this is a radical issue to brick our will, to -- to break our will, to destroy our way of life, and we're not dealing with it sufficiently. we should have an approach to this problem as if we're at war. we should monitor people's behavior to prevent what happened in florida. gather intelligence -- we should never close a file against a suspected sympathizer to isil because you can't prove a crime. you should keep the file open as long as they're a threat. i appreciate all you've done, senator mccain, to strengthen the military. to those who have voted against expanding funding to defense, you have made a mistake.

destroy radical islam over there before it comes here. to do that you need a stronger military. our navy and army are going to be the size of 1940 and 1950, respectively. we're cutting the marine corps. we're cutting our ability to dwn ourselves -- to defend our selves and this amendment will restore money to help the military more effectively deal with radical islam over there so we don't have to fight it over here. to those who look at it as a gun control issue, you're missing the point. to those who think we should not restore spending, you're not listening to our commanders. our commanders are begging for more money to more effectively support the force in a struggle we can't afford to lose. to those who think we should declare war on the islamic faith itself, you have no idea how dangerous that motto is. to those who want to close a file because we can't prove a crime when we know the person we're looking at has got weird, strange beliefs and actually acting on these beliefs, then you're mawing a -- you're making

a huge mistake. so until america gets our attitude adjusted, until we chank ou -- change our policies, until we restore o our ability o defend ourselves, this is going to continue. the president continues to marginalize this. i don't have any idea that al-baghdadi called this guy up and said go to this nightclub and shoot on this day. that is a direction. it was clear to me this man had been interviewed on three separate owe cautions by the f.b.i., that he was expressing sympathy and allegiance to radical islam and that he was associated with a man who had went from florida to syria, back to florida, back to syria, who became a suicide bomber for al-nusra. there is no way in hell this file should have ever been closed because of political correctness. it should have stayed open until

we were sure that he was not a threat to us. the goal is to prevent these things, not react to them. so i want to tell you right now that the things we're not talking about in this bill -- and we can't vote on in this bill -- are making us less safe. not allowing these afghan interpreters to come to america who have protected us over there is going to make us harder to have partners. by insisting that these budget caps stay in place is a huge mistake. to my friends on the left and the libertarians who want to turn the war into a crime, the biggest mistake of all, so this is very sad that the united states senate seems not to be able to adjust to the reality that exists understand that we all have -- and that we all have our petty grievances and we can't move forward as one to strengthen the military to give our intelligence community the tools they need to protect us, and to have a game plan to win a war we can't afford to lose, and

we're not having votes that are very important, in my opinion, for no good reason. and this will come back to haunt us. last week -- and i'll end with this -- senator mccain and i were talking about the threats we face. i have been trying the best i can to articulate the difference between fighting a crime and fighting a war. i know what the enemy wants. they want to destroy our way of life and everything we hold near and dear. they want to kill everything that's different. they want everything that america refuses to give them. we're never going to give them what they want, which is the ability to be yourself, the ability to worship god the way you choose, if at all, the ability to be different, the ability to speak your mind, to elect your leaders. that's what they want. we can't afford to give it to them. we don't have the right attitude for the policies to end the war. it will end one day. people are not buying what

radical islam is selling within the faifnlg the longer it goes, the more endangered we are and our policies are not working and i am trying my best to change them in a responsible way, consistent with our constitution, consistent with our values, and i find myself on the floor of the senate 48 hours after the largest attack since 9/11 unable to move forward on things that matter. mr. mccain: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: if we can get consent and individual senators will relinquish their objections, the senate is ready to vote on the shaheen amendment on special immigrant visas for afghan interpreters, which will save lives. the moran amendment on guantanamo shall the gillibrand amendment on the uniform code of military justice, the nelson amendment -- no, the murray amendment on cryopreservation of

eggs and sperm, the corker amendment to authorize the activities of state department, and all of those we're ready to debate and vote on. so if there is objection, i hope that if there is objection that senators involved will relinquish their objection so we can move forward with those amendmentamendments and have fil passage. i yield the floor. mrs. gillibrand: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i ask unanimous consent that it be in order to offer amendment 4310, notwithstanding rule 22, and the senate vote in relation to the amendment and the amendment be subject to a 60-affirmative vote threshold with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. mccain: with reluctance, i object on behalf of one member on this side. i object.

the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. mccain: may i say -- reserving the right to object, the gillibrand amendment, i do not support, but the gillibrand amendment deserves the debate and vote in this body. it is a serious issue of the utmost seriousness to the military. the chair certainly understands that. it's got to do with sexual assaults in the military. and it deserves the attention of the entire united states senate, debate and vote. unfortunately, there is objection. mrs. gillibrand: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. jilmrs. gillibrand: rise to spek about the amendment of under our current military justice system, when a service member is accused of sexual assault, the decision to prosecute isn't actually made by a trained prosecute or a lawyer of any kind. in fact, it's made by a colonel or a brigadier general, or another high-ranking military officer. now, our commanders are the best in the world when it comes to tactics and strategy, but most

of them have little to no experience in legal or criminal matters, and why should they have that experience? our commanders are not prosecutors, they're not lawyers. they're war fighters and their job is to keep our country safe, not make legal judgments about whether to prosecute a rape. the current military justice system has failed our sexual assault survivors for too long. this amendment very sumly takes the decision about whether to prosecute these crimes and gives it to trained, experienced, independent military prosecutors. we have all the evidence we need that this problem has not gotten better in the last year. we have more data, we've looked at more case files. we've heard from more survivors. it's clear that little has changed des spoot the department'department's claims s are getting better. when the department of defense estimates that there's 20,000 service members that are sexual assaulted in a year, that is not progress. when eight out of every 10

military assault survivors don't report the crime, that is not progress. when 62% of survivors are being retailated against, that is not progress. more than half of those retaliation cases, 58% of them are perpetrated by someone in the chain of command. that is not progress. and when the percentages of survivors willing to report openly has declined for the past five years, that is not progress. madam president, when it was confirmed by the associated press that the pentagon blatantly misled the senate in order to skew our debate, that is perhaps the ultimate sign that there has not been progress. our military justice system is broken. it's failing our members. and no matter how many marginal reforms we make, as long as commanders with no legal experience are continuing to make this important decision of whether or not to prosecute violent sex crimes we are not going to solve the problem. once and for all, let's take this decision to prosecute these

crimes and give it to trained independent military prosecutors. let's give our service members a justice system that is worthy of their service. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: madam president, we've cleared the following amendments to go by voice vote on this side. i understand there are objections on the other side to this list. i want the record to reflect what's on the table from this side, and i just like getting into this back and forth -- i dislike getting into this back and forth. but i ask unanimous consent that the managers' package as portrayed here be made pending. printed. the presiding officer: is there objection to the printing? without objection the materials will be printed in the record.

the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, i want to start by offering my condolences to the family and loved ones and victims of sunday's heinous attack, to the city of orlando and to everyone that was affected by the terrible tragedy and act of terror. while our hearts are with the families and communities right now, in the coming days we should have a robust debate about how we can all come together to do everything possible to prevent tragedies like that from happening again. and now, madam president, i want to turn to the bill that we're considering today, the national defense authorization act, which has been described as one that will modernize the military health system, modernize the military health system and give the men and women of our military higher quality care, better access and better experience. it has been described as upholding commitments to service members. i wish i could stand here and

say that i agree with that 100%. but, madam president, there is a glaring problem in this bill. it's a problem that really cuts against the idea that our country should be there for the men and women of our military who risk so much on our behalf no matter what. go to page 1,455 of this massive bill. buried in a funding chart, there is one line that would zero out a new program intended to help men and women in our military who suffer catastrophic injuries while fighting on our behalf. i don't know how this line got in there. i don't know who thought it was a good idea. i don't know why. but i do know what this is. it is absolutely wrong, and we ought to fix it. that's why i've come to the senate floor repeatedly over the past week to urge my colleagues to correct this shameful change,

and with the clock running down on this bill now, now is the time to act. so let me give this some context. six months ago the pentagon announced a pilot program to offer our service members who are getting ready to deploy an opportunity at cryopreservation. in other words, freezing their eggs or sperm. it gave deploying service members not just the ability to have reproductive options in the event that they are grievously injured, but some deserved peace of mind. it meant they don't have to worry about choosing between defending their country or a chance at having a family someday. madam president, this new program was met with widespread praise and relief. it reflected a basic level of respect for service members who are willing to risk suffering

catastrophic injuries on our behalf. madam president, i was hoping this new program was a step that we could then build on, a move in the right direction, an important part of our larger work to help our warriors who sustained grievous injuries to achieve their dream of starting a family. that is why i was so disturbed when i learned this bill would move us in the other way. and despite what some of my colleagues have apparently told you, my amendment very deliberately states it will not divert money from any other important health program. so, madam president, i'm here again today to ask unanimous consent to have a vote on my amendment that would restore this pilot program. it is hard to imagine any of my colleagues standing up to say that men and women who are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country for all of us should be denied a shot at their dream of a family. i'm hopeful we can have a vote on this, and i encourage my

colleagues to support it and step away from what would be a truly shameful mistake. so, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that it be in order to offer amendment number 4490 relating to fertility treatments and the senate vote in relation to the amendment with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. mccain: madam president, with reluctance -- and i apologize to the senator from washington -- this is another amendment that deserves debate and votes and another amendment that has not been brought up that deserves debate and a vote is that of the issue of women in selective service, being registered for selective service. i want to make it very clear, i wanted and this body wanted a vote on women, whether they should be registered for selective service or not, and it was not allowed, not by this individual but only one. i ask unanimous consent that the

senator from indiana be recognized in addition to my time for three minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection to the pending request? mr. mccain: three minutes out of your time. mrs. murray: is there objection? the presiding officer: is there objection to the pending amendment? mr. mccain: i object to the -- the presiding officer: objection is heard. is there objection to the request from the senator from arizona? without objection. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent to modify the nelson amendment 4670 with the changes at the desk. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the amendment is modified. mr. coats: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: when i first came to the senate we had members on

both sides that had principled positions on any number of issues. but we rarely if ever, because of our principled stand, denied the opportunity for debate and vote. the senate is here for the purpose of debating and voting, and those of us sometimes we win, sometimes we lose, the consequences are recorded and the bill goes forward, as this one would, to be combined with the house, to go to conference and finally issue a resolution. we're not talking about just any piece of legislation here. we're talking about the national security and national defense for our nation. there are important issues here that need to be debated and need to be voted on. and yet, we are denied that opportunity. i'm saying someone on our side has denied that opportunity. the other side has every right to say, well, if you're going to play that game, we're going to play that game. that is not how the senate should operate. the senator from new york, the senator from washington on the democrat side have principled

amendments. i don't support the amendment from the senator from new york, but it ought to be debated and it ought to be voted on and it ought to be worked through. that is why we are sent here. no wonder the public across the nation is so frustrated with us, because we are in total stalemate. we made -- senator mccain, senator reed has made every possible effort to move this process forward, and yet here we are, one person has, as we know, under the procedures the right to stop anything from going forward if they use those procedures. and this has happened. it's very unfortunate. i'm just saying that in comparison to my time healer earlier when we -- time here earlier when we functioned as a united states senate we are in dysfunction here. i thank my colleague from arizona and colleague from rhode island for allowing me the opportunity to speak.

and yield back. mr. mccain: madam president, i ask unanimous consent -- i used a minute of the democrat side's time. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mccain: i would just like to say that my friend from indiana who has been a member of this body for many years and has served in a variety of functions for this nation is exactly right. we're now in a situation where because someone doesn't get a vote on their amendment, therefore, everybody else's amendment is not agreed to. that's not the way the senate was intended to function. that's not the way the senate should function. i just heard of two amendments that i strongly object to, both of them, but i want debate and votes on them. unfortunately we now have a situation, frankly, on both sides where unless people get their amendment, then nobody

gets their amendment. we're now, among other things, putting the lives of the interpreters who have served this nation and saved american lives in danger by refusing to take up the shaheen amendment, which allows some of these people to come to the united states of america. so, when some of them start dying, my friends -- and they will because they get the night letters that they're going to be assassinated, them and their families -- then i hope that they understand what's at stake here. and i certainly wouldn't want that on my conscience. i just -- in addition to, by the way, our, my friend, lindsey graham's comments, we'll have time to talk about it. but my favorite quote of all of this failure -- that epitomizes

the failure of this president is -- quote -- "january 2014, the analogy we use around here sometimes, and i think it's accurate, is if a j.v. team puts on uniforms, that doesn't make them kobe bryant." that statement will go down in infamiliar -- infamy. if a j.v. team puts on a lakers uniform, that doesn't make them kobe bryant. isis is the same way as a j.v. team putting on a lakers uniform. there is nothing more revealing for the ultimate conclusion of what happened in orlando. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas.

mow mow madam president, i'm once -- mr. moran: i'm once again on the senate floor about the importance of an amendment i would like made pending to this national defense authorization bill. i'm discouraged, disappointed that over the weekend no resolution of a variety of issues has been had, and, therefore, there would be objection once again if i offered this amendment. what i'm attempting to do and what we've talked about so many times here on the floor and in the hallways of congress is that kansans generally are opposed to the closing of guantanamo bay as a detention facility, and particularly opposed to bringing those detainees to the united states, and especially opposed to bringing those detainees to ft. leavenworth, kansas. and unfortunately this bill includes an amendment that was offered in committee that allows for the design and planning of construction of a facility. and my amendment is the simple removal of those provisions from

this legislation, and it is clear to me that throughout the entire time of the administration of this president, this administration has been unable to provide any cohesive, comprehensive, legally justifiable closure and relocation plan, and yet this bill authorizes the planning and design. and so, madam president, i rise to once again express my dissatisfaction and anger with the senate for its ability to do its job. whether or not my amendment would prevail at the moment is not the issue. it's whether or not there can even be a vote on what i consider a very important issue to kansas and to the country. and i appreciate the efforts by the chairman of the committee who has assured me that he supports this amendment and through no fault of his own were unable to take a vote to demonstrate that support in the united states senate. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i'd like to say to the senator from new hampshire kansas, we had an -- to the

senator from kansas, we had an agreement that there would be a voice vote just as we had an agreement to take up the shaheen amendment also with overwhelming support of the united states senate to save the lives of these interpreters. unfortunately, one or two individual senators blocked any progress on that. i want to assure the senator from kansas that we will do what is necessary to assure that your amendment is enacted into law. mr. reed: mr. president, i just want to emphasize -- i would ask for a request for an additional minute. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reed: i just want to underscore what the chairman has said. we worked very closely with senator moran, senator shaheen and many others to come up with a package, including senator gillibrand and senator murray. the chairman announced previously if this package had moved, it would unlock not only this package but other

amendments that we have cleared on both sides. but unfortunately because parntsly the objection -- because apparently the objection of the individual the chairman cited, we are now coming to final passage. with that, madam president, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, all postcloture time on s. 2943 has expired. the question occurs on amendment number 4670 offered by the senator from florida, mr. nelson. -- as modified. is there any further debate on the -- mr. reed: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: madam president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the question occurs on the nelson amendment number 4670. all those in favor say aye. opposed, no.

the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment, as modified, is agreed to. the question occurs on amendment 4607 offered by the senator from arizona, mr. mccain. any further debate? hearing none, all members in favor say aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. the clerk will read the title of the bill for a third time. the clerk: calendar number 469, s. 2943, a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2017 for military activities of the department of defense and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: question occurs on passage of s. 2943, as amended.

is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: .

the presiding officer: are there any members wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the ayes are 85. the nays are 13. the bill as amended is passed. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. a senator: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each until 12:30 today. further, that at 12:30, the senate stand in recess subject to the call of the chair and that notwithstanding rule 22, the motion to invoke clofort on the motion to -- cloture on the motion to proceed to h.r. 2578 occur when the senate conconveniences from the recess. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. a senator: mr. president? for the information of senators, the cloture vote on the motion to proceed -- the presiding officer: the

senate will be in order. ththe senator from missouri. a senator: the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the commerce, justice, state appropriations bill will occur immediately following the official photo at 2:15 today. the presidin -- with senators permitted to speak therein up to ten minutes each. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, i'm very -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order.

mr. mccain: mr. president, i want to thank -- what was the vote? the presiding officer: 85-13. mr. mccain: i'd like to thank the 85 members who voted for the bill, and i'd like to criticize the 13 who voted against. but, mr. president, i think this is a good bill. i want to thank senator reed for the cooperation and the effort that has been made on our committee in a -- on a bipartisan basis. if it were not for his cooperation and assistance and partnership, equal partnership, we would not have been able to have a bill of these significant numbers. i want to thank the members for their votes, but i'd also like to point out as happy as i am about the size of the vote, that

we left out some very important amendments. we left out particularly one that has to do with interpreters who are being slaughtered as we speak because they are the number one targets for the taliban and for isis. so as i take pleasure in the size of the vote, i would also urge my colleagues that when we take up a bill of this significance, not every senator can have his or her way, not every senator can have their amendment particularly when it's not agreed on the other side. so i have to say i blame a few senators that believe it's their way or the highway. i hope that when we move forward with legislation, we can have amendments and vote. that's what the senate is supposed to be about.

but finally i'd like to again thank senator reed for -- and his staff for all of their cooperation and assistance. i intend to go to conference and get a bill to the president's desk. i would point out, finally, to my colleagues, this is probably -- this legislation is probably the biggest reform enacted by the senate armed services committee and the senate since goldwater-nichols some 30 years ago. there are fundamental reforms in the military and how they do business, and that is very badly needed. we had a hearing a couple of weeks ago about an f-35. first time the f-35 began in production was 15 years ago. i changed one of these every 18 months. our acquisition system is broken. it needs to be fixed. there are billions and billions of dollars of cost overruns that we need to fix if we're going to have the confidence of the american people in their tax

dollars being spent wisely. again, i thank my friend and colleague from rhode island. i yield. read mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island read let me commend and thank the chairman for his -- ree mr. reed: let me commend and thank the chairman for his leadership. experts, military and strategic policy and through a series of many hearings we were able to craft as the chairman has pointed out significant legislation reforming operations of the department of defense. it will now go to conference and we'll begin to work to improve that legislation. i think improvements can be made with respect to the changes in the context of goldwater-nichols reorganization. but i think the chairman's leadership was absolutely essential and incredibly productive. we've had a debate on a number of issues here on the floor. we are now i think at the point

where we are -- should be not only continuing our efforts to get this bill passed but once again we've underscored the need to eliminate sequestration. that is staring us straight in the face, next year particularly when we don't have the relief afforded by last year's temporary agreement. we will be dealing with numbers that will not allow our military to perform their basic mission to protect the united states. so we have to start working on the issue of sequestration. as i suggested it applies not only through the department of defense but to other agencies of the federal government. we were able and again this is through the very careful leadership of the chairman to come up with a working and i think workable compromise with respect to russian engines without surrendering the basic principle that the chairman enunciated that we should not be relying on russian engines to

send our technology into space. but as the chairman also indicated, there are several issues that we could not reach conclusion on and which deserve not only a vote but deserves my view in some cases -- in many cases passage. senator shaheen worked tirelessly. i have never seen a colleague work so intensely, so thoughtfully, so professionally, literally going from office to office asking for support for the afghan interpreters, individuals who have already been targeted in many cases because of their help to the united states. if we don't have this legislation passed, then not only will we send a terrible message to these individuals who have served us, sacrificed long with us, but also to succeeding generations who will not come, who will not come to our aid because they're afraid of the consequences. so not only looking back at justice and equity for people who helped us but looking

forward to be able to operate not just afghanistan but other areas. i think it was necessary to not only bring up the shaheen amendment but to pass it. senator gillibrand as the chairman pointed out has a very important amendment with respect to sexual assault in the military. she has done remarkable work with respect to the uniform code of military justice. she's worked very closely with many colleagues and i must also thank senator murkowski. there is one important about the role of the commander. that issue deserves a debate like the chairman i do not agree with the conclusion but i certainly believe that she should have had a vote. senatosenator murray also came n amendment. she pointed out the cry of preservation for soldiers as she go overseas and they do want to have a family.

there is the risk of battle which could prevent them and this is a procedure which would allow them to not only serve their country but ultimately some day in a situation of being wounded where a they couldn't -- again, many people have different views on this particular amendment but a vote i believe would have been in order. these are three issues but these issues cannot, i think, undercut the incredible reforms that the chairman has inspired the bill. the thoughtful debate and ultimately the conclusion, a strong bipartisan support for this initiative. i want to thank the staff because we could not have done this without the staff. i want to particularly thank chris broes and all his colleagues on the republican side. they did a remarkable job. and if all would bear with me, i want to individually thank my staff. jodi bennet, carolyn triewder, john clark, john green, creighton green, osgo gaze

falisk, kirk mcconnell, john kirk, and most especially my staff director elizabeth king. and let me thank the floor staff, too. without gary and laura and others on this floor, we would not have gotten to a conclusion. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i thank my friend from rhode island. i look forward to the conference and completing a bill for the 54th straight year where the congress of the united states has sent to the president and the president has signed into law the defense authorization act. i don't know of a gaiter responsibility that we -- greater responsibility that we have and i think that was despite our differences and issues. i think that's why the vote was overwhelming as it was today. unfortunately the two senators from idaho were uninformed on the importance of this issue. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. reed: mr. president, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. a senator: mr. president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes, we are. a senator: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated, please. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president, i rise to speak very briefly to highlight my opposition to the cloture motion on the appropriations bill for the department of commerce, department of justice, and the science agencies and discuss an issue of critical importance to my home state of georgia.

mr. perdue: and what i think is a direct abuse of what the founders intended for senate debate. for over 20 years alabama, florida, georgia, and the army corps of engineers have been engaged in various lawsuits over water rights between those three states. gentleman has two reservoirs in question, lake lanier and lake altoona operated by the corps that provide drinking water for atlanta and provide water downstream. these river basins also provide water to south georgia and parts of alabama and florida. currently litigation is pending in the united states supreme court, the federal district d.c. court, and the u.s. district court for the northern district of georgia. negotiations are also ongoing between the state governments on this very topic, and i believe they're closer to a solution right now than we've ever been. clearly this is an issue that should be left to the states to

settle through negotiation and if needed litigation, but now another attempt is being made by some in the senate to serp tishtly -- surreptitiously influence the court. we'll vote on the bill sometime this afternoon, mr. president, and i strongly oppose this bill. this is the business of the states and should not be resolved or influenced in this manner. let me be clear. it is not this body's place to try and tip the scales in any way on this matter. furthermore, we've already had this fight. this same language was inserted last year during debate over the omnibus spending bill. it was removed then after further examination and explanation walls given to leaders in both chambers over its purpose. let me reiterate that. when the leaders of this body and the leader in the house saw what was really happening in this language, they both independently removed the language.

it was removed then and nothing has changed to merit having this debate again in this senate this year. multiple lawsuits and negotiation between the states are ongoing. there's nothing unusual about that. any attempt to create a role for congress during the appropriations process on this issue would set a dangerous precedent and should alarm every senator who cares about the rights and integrity of the states. injecting congress into this world gives an unjust advantage to other states involved. stripping away any incentive for them to negotiate in good faith with our state of georgia. furthermore, this congressional involvement would establish a dangerous precedent for any state involved in water resource negotiations. the negotiations on water rights in the west make these pale in comparison, mr. president. that is not a role our founders intended for congress to play, and inserting the federal government into another issue

where it doesn't belong would be emblematic of why folks back home are so fed up with the dysfunction in washington. for these reasons and others, i will discuss throughout this week as we debate this bill, i will definitely vote no on advancing to the c.j.s. appropriation bill. mr. chairman, i yield back and i note the whip is in the senate. thank you, sir. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i have five unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have been approved by both the majority and minority leaders. i would ask consent that it be adopted. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, the senate is demonstrating its serious commitment to supporting our military, and it's a good thing. in passing the defense authorization bill, a bipartisan piece of legislation, we have authorized funding for training and for the ever-evolving

threats that our troops are meeting around the world. it will also give our men and women in uniform the most up to date equipment, including newer and more capable aircraft and vehicles. and fortunately the bill also authorized needed improvements at military facilities like construction projects in my state at fort hood, joint base san antonio, the red river army depot and ellington field and provide a much-needed and well-deserved pay raise for our troops. so i'm glad we were able to get through this process and to get this bill done and do our part to make sure that our military is ready to face any potential threat around the world. mr. president, on another note, i know the country is in shock and still trying to evaluate as we continue to learn from the f.b.i.'s investigation more about the terrorist attack in orlando, one that killed almost

50 people and of course left dozens injured. according to the latest reports, one of the victims was frank escalante from westlico, texas. my heart goes out to frank and his family and friends and others who lost loved ones early sunday morning and for those living with the wounds that they sustained in that terrible attack. with this fact of violence and hatred, orlando sadly joins a growing list of american cities and cities around the world changed forever by radical islamic extremism. the jihadists like those in san bernadino before him declared his allegiance to the islamic state, and like the two boston marathon bombers, he was previously investigated by the f.b.i. for connections to terrorists or known terrorist groups. and in similar fashion to those who carried out the gruesome attacks in paris last november. like those terrorists, the

terrorists in orlando targeted hundreds of unarmed civilians, and isis has used the internet to urge lone wolves to imitate these types of attacks. in other words, not only are we concerned about people in the middle east who pledged allegiance to isis coming to the united states, we're concerned about americans coming from the united states going there and training and then coming back home, but the worst and perhaps the most difficult of all to deal with is are people in place, american citizens like this shooter who are radicalized in place. and of course this is the biggest challenge that the f.b.i. has. but coming together now, we must work not only to mourn and grieve those lives lost but also to try to make a difference. it's time to act. the orlando tact was not just a random act of violence. it was a calculated act of terror. by aiming his gun at innocent

civilians, this jihadist opened fire on our freedoms, on our way of life and on the bedrock principles that make us a diverse and vibrant democracy. we have to take these threats seriously and do everything we can to counter the ideology which provides a threat to our security both within and without our borders. but we also need an honest conversation about how to move forward legislation that might have the effect of preventing attacks like this in the future. some of those conversations are already happening, and i hope we won't stop until we make some progress. but one place we could start is a measure i introduced last year which would present -- prevent known or suspected terrorists from purchasing firearms in the first place. it would not just block someone from buying a gun because of mere suspicion, but it would set up a process to actually detain

and if based on evidence they are deemed to be a threat to society prevent them from not only purchasing a firearm but put them behind bars where they can't be a danger to other people. if potential terrorists are dangerous enough not to be allowed to own a gun, then i think they are dangerous enough to be taken off the streets. we shouldn't forget that a person who feels compelled to commit a terrorist act will not be stopped by just being unable to legally purchase a firearm. the 9/11 attackers used box cutters and airplanes. the boston marathon bombers used homemade explosives. and the terrorists in paris and brussels used illegal firearms and suicide vests. and in the case of the orlando attacker, it does not appear he was on a watch list at the time he purchased the weapons he used to carry out this horrific attack. in fact, the f.b.i. had twice cleared him of being an active terror threat, so we need to be

clear-eyed about this if we're actually serious about stopping events like this in the future. we do need to go further, i believe, and do more to arm our law enforcement officers with the tools they need in order to counter terrorists and defend our communities. f.b.i. director james comey has outlined with great clarity and specificity how great a threat we face from extremists within our borders, and he's made the point that the f.b.i. has open investigations in all of their f.b.i. field offices around the country. that is, investigations of people being radicalized in place and doing the terrible deed that the shooter in orlando did early sunday morning. so if the f.b.i. director says this is an urgent need, we ought to act. too be often the f.b.i. and other local law enforcement officers have to operate with one hand tied behind their back because they can't access key

pieces of information liken crypted data. we saw that in an attempted terrorist attack in garland, texas, last year on the day of the isis-inspired attack just northeast of dallas, two jihadists traveling unfortunately from phoenix came to garland and exchanged more than -- but before they did so exchanged more than 100 different messages with terrorists overseas. but unfortunately the f.b.i. still doesn't have access to those communications because they are encrypted. that means that law enforcement could still be missing critical information that could uncover future plots or identify more terrorists both abroad and here at home. but the garland case is not unique. the f.b.i. is routinely hamstrung by outdated policies that make their job of protecting the homeland more difficult. and we saw another example of that in san bernadino, california. we have got to address this

major policy gap. i hope the senate has an opportunity to consider an amendment i introduced to a bill that would update the electronic communications privacy act. it would help f.b.i. agents get access to critical information faster to prevent terrorist attacks. the f.b.i. director has made clear this is his top legislative priority, and it's also supported by president obama and his administration. so i believe it's our duty now more than ever to do something about it, to make sure that the f.b.i. has critical counterterrorism tools to be able to identify potential threats before they commit horrific acts of violence like we saw in orlando. it's clear that the threats are on our doorsteps, and we should be willing to give those on the front lines of the counterterrorism fight faster access to critical information so they can identify terrorists and thwart those attacks. i would just say, mr. president,

that i'm not talking about -- i'm not talking about content of communications, at least initially. we know under the fourth amendment to the united states constitution that law enforcement has to demonstrate probable cause to get access to content on online communications, but there is a variety -- there is a whole host of information that identifies email addresses, internet protocol addresses and the like that could help the f.b.i. connect the dots. and if we're expecting the f.b.i. to connect the dots in terrorist attacks and to prevent other -- other tragedies like that in orlando, then we ought to give them access to all the dots, if we expect them to connect those. so, mr. president, i hope this week perhaps as we debate what the appropriate response is to dealing with these acts of mass terror, we look at the legislation that i introduced

last december which would notify the f.b.i. in the event someone on a watch list attempts to purchase a firearm and then give the f.b.i. a chance if the evidence warrants it to detain that individual and to deny them access to the firearm, and moreover, i would hope we also provide the f.b.i. with additional tools in order to identify those radicalized americans in place who pose a potential threat here in the homeland. finally, mr. president, we must do more to counter the venomous ideology peddled by isis by hitting them in their safe havens abroad. i still am amazed when the president refers to isis as the j.v. team and yet isis seems to be the best game going for terrorists in the middle east. indeed, recently i traveled with members of the homeland security in the house to tunisia where

many -- where they have had as many as 100 tunisians travel to libya where they have trained along with other foreign fighters and then hope to make the short jump into europe via italy, and then potentially to commit terrorist attacks there or even to come to the united states, because many of those countries are visa waiver countries. 38 different countries are visa waiver countries. if you make it into europe to a visa waiver country, you can literally come to the united states without a visa. that is a potential threat to the united states. so we need to deal with isis seriously, which means we need a strategy to crush isis and to prevent them not only from killing innocent civilians in the middle east where we have seen in syria alone some 400,000 syrians die in this -- what started out to be a civil war which now appears to be attracting terrorists from all across the region. we need to deal with the threat

of isis as a serious national security matter and not just as a law enforcement exercise where we act after the fact to investigate it and then perhaps to prosecute people and put them behind bars because there is nothing we can do to a potential terrorist to punish them for taking the lives of 50 people or 49 people in orlando, especially when they day themselves in the attacks. so we ought to be about preventing those attacks, not just prosecuting the culpable countries the attack is over. earlier today we passed the national defense authorization bill and gave our military men and women in uniform the resources they need in order to combat this evil outside our borders, but what we need most of all in this fight against radical islamic ideology is leadership, leadership from the white house and a strategy which we still are waiting for and a commitment to root out and

destroy isis and its affiliates. i get the sense that the president and his national security team feel like this is something they can contain, but this is not something they can contain. maybe they can hope to contain the people fighting in the middle east, but of course we know what's happened there, and maybe they can hope to catch people traveling from the middle east to the united states, but it's not 100% secure, but we know for sure that the preeminent threat here in the homeland is people being radicalized in -- and placed through social media and obviously being instructed to kill americans where they live. this group is growing in strength across north africa, as i mentioned, in places like libya, now a failed state because of the flawed strategy that the administration had after they took out moan march qadhafi. it seems like -- moammar

qadhafi. it seems like we learned nothing from iraq or the other threats in the region. now is not the time for downplaying the evil that perpetuates this violence. and it's also not a time for showboats on things like gun control. this individual in orlando who murdered 49 people and injured so many more had a firearms license since 2011. he was a licensed security guard. he was not on a watch list at the time he committed this horrific act. so passing some legislation dealing with people on watch lists such as the senator from california offered last december wouldn't have done nothing to prevent this attack. we ought to be about finding a way to come together on a bipartisan basis to make sure that sort of travesty is not repeated over and over and over again. and the only way we're going to do it is get serious about giving the f.b.i. the tools they

need and also to fight and crush isis and its dangerous ied local where it reside -- ideology where it resides in the middle east. so we ought to take that opportunity this week. we need to focus on the threat and on how better to protect our country. i look forward to working with my colleagues in other ways, other ideas they may have to prevent tragedies like orlando, san bernardino, and boston from happening in the future. mr. president, i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. perdue: i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. perdue: i ask unanimous consent the senate stand in recess as if under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate stands in recess subject to the call of that is ron johnson.

thank you so much for your time. we now turn and now we turn to california serving on capitol hill at the h top democrat on the subcommittee on the central intelligence agency. with that in mind, congressman tom explain what the cia's role is in the investigation into thu attack that happened on monday. >> sure. thank you for having me on. it's my first time on the "washington journal." we are grieving during the lgbt pride month. it appears certain people were targeted for who they are.

we pray for the wanted and also right now we are grateful for the life force men who stormed into the building and took down terrorists. we were briefed last night on the committee and we will be briefed again today. the questions we are asking is who is this individual? is this somebody who is self radicalized? was this the nicest direct attack and of course was the person working with others whose tail remain at-large? that is the key question right now. we will be looking of foreign travel the individual may have had. also any disturbing behavior the person demonstrated in the community. we have heard now and open source reporting so many people who observe disturbing behavior but wrote very innocentr explanations for a and didn't pass it along. that's a big problem when that is not being shared or passed along. as lawmakers, we avert one's

ability to look at how could somebody on a terror watch list just a couple years ago be able to buy a firearm and nobody was alerted by her. right now there is a no-fly, no by piece of legislation that house democrats have offered. with efforts in the house again of legislation that says if you are ever on a terror watch list, you shouldn't be able to get it done. now there's questions if you were on a watch list, should they have a process with the fbi notices that become off the watch list but by again year later. >> how does one get on the watch list? >> guest: in this case, and the reporting coming out of the fbi was disturbing comments were made by this individual. the fbi has a responsibility to go and track the person down, interview that and then follow the