[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 88 (Wednesday, June 3, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3654-S3667]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
(The remarks of Mrs. Murray pertaining to the introduction of S. 1494
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mrs. MURRAY. I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up
to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Export-Import Bank
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor, and I know we are
talking about the Defense bill. I know my colleagues are trying to work
things out as it relates to the Defense bill, but I am just as
concerned about the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank--a credit
agency that helps small businesses in the United States of America--
which is expiring at the end of this month, June 30.
As we had discussions on the trade promotion authority act, I was
very concerned that we were going to be passing trade policy while at
the same time allowing very important trade tools to expire. I still
remain very concerned about the small businesses that are here in the
Capitol today and that have given much testimony at various hearings--
yesterday in the Senate Banking Committee and today in the House
Financial Services Committee--about the need for this type of credit
agency that helps small businesses ship their products to other
countries that are new market opportunities for them.
The reason why this is so important is because other countries have
credit agencies--if you will, credit insurance. You are a small
business. You want to get your products sold in developing markets. You
can't find conventional banking or you can find conventional banking
but that bank says it is not going to insure these losses. Thus, what
has emerged for the United States of America, Europe, China, Asia, many
parts of the world, is what is called credit insurance.
That credit insurance takes the conventional banking and says: We
will help secure that conventional banking loan. So that if you are a
manufacturer in, say, Columbus, OH, making machinery and you are
selling that in China, you actually have an opportunity to sell that
product, use commercial banking in Ohio, have that guaranteed
[[Page S3655]]
through credit insurance. A lot of business gets done on behalf of the
United States of America.
We know this well in the Pacific Northwest because we do a lot of
international trade. There are a lot of companies that have learned
that the best way for them to grow small business is to become an
exporter. So, yes, it may have started with our agricultural economy,
where people started trading our agricultural products, but many of our
agricultural markets are big export markets. Washington wheat, 90
percent of it is exported. Obviously, people know a lot about aerospace
and the fact that the aerospace market is also an export market.
But what people do not realize is a lot of small businesses also
became exporters, and they understood that the big market opportunities
that are out there for their products are in growing economies around
the globe. In fact, there is going to be a doubling of the middle class
around the globe in the next several years. There are huge
opportunities as those economies have higher income individuals to buy
products and services.
So it is natural for us to want to increase exports. That is why the
President has had an initiative to double exports over the last several
years. I think he has set it for a 5-year period. We made good progress
toward that growth in exports. So it really remains one of the biggest
economic opportunities for our country, which is to have U.S. companies
grow jobs by becoming exporters.
The Import-Export Bank costs zero to the U.S. Treasury. In fact, it
actually generates money to the U.S. Treasury. So the notion that we
would let a tool of the American economy expire, which literally helps
us grow small businesses in the United States and throughout our
country, when it actually generates money to our economy and costs us
nothing, is something that is pretty hard to believe.
In fact, I do not know where my colleagues are going to come up with
the money to pay for the $670 million hole that you will have in the
Treasury if you do not do the Export-Import Bank. It has been a great
tool for growing that economy. What we have heard from small businesses
now is that they are actually seeing their deals affected. They are in
the process of trying to negotiate with a country. Maybe it takes
months and months to negotiate a final sale. They are showing up for
those negotiations, and the businesses are saying: We are going to buy
from somebody else. We are not going to buy from you, U.S.
manufacturer. We are going buy from an Asian manufacturer because it is
clear their credit insurance company still works and we don't have to
wait. We don't have to wait for the uncertainty of the U.S. Senate or
the House of Representatives, so we are going to go ahead and do that
business deal with them.
In fact, we have U.S. manufacturers on the Hill today saying they are
losing business because the U.S. Senate will not vote on the
reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. So we worked very hard
during the trade discussion to guarantee that we would get a vote on
the Export-Import Bank before June 30 on a vehicle mutually agreed upon
by the supporters here of the Export-Import Bank and Senator McConnell,
the Senate leader.
I think what we are saying is we do not think the Defense
authorization bill is that vehicle. Obviously, the Defense
authorization bill, now under criticism by the White House and
threatened to be vetoed, is not a vehicle that is going to get done any
time soon, certainly not by June 30, and that is when the Bank expires.
So I guess to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who
continue to hide behind the Heritage Foundation and will not declare
whether they support the Export-Import Bank or don't support the Bank,
the attempt to put it on another vehicle that is not going anywhere is
not going to help American business and the American economy.
The Export-Import Bank in the State of Washington has helped generate
$102 billion in exports and has helped over 230 exporters in our State.
Those companies have grown their businesses. We have heard from one. In
fact, there is a Web site you can go to for Manhasset Specialty
Company, which makes music stands. You can hear a lot about them and
how they have grown their business around the globe because they have
used the export credit agency.
They do not understand why this Agency is about to collapse. They are
concerned about their business. What we hear from a lot of businesses
is, if this credit agency is curtailed--which is the wish and desire of
the Heritage Foundation, an organization that does not even support our
export agenda--basically, about 25 percent of their business, on
average, is related to the export market. They say that about roughly
25 percent of their employees will then end up being laid off as those
business deals are unwound over the next several months. That means
they will not be able to keep and retain current workers.
So my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, by refusing to bring
up the Export-Import Bank on a vehicle that could be voted on by the
House of Representatives before the end of June, are literally saying
to small businesses across America: Go ahead and lay off workers; we
don't care.
Now, the reason I have been so passionate about this and out here
fighting is not because I don't think the aerospace industry can take
care of itself--there is a lot of discussion that the aerospace economy
can be built where there are economies that will support credit agency
financing--but why I am here is because there are a lot of small
businesses that are crafting their products every single day to be the
best on the globe. They are working hard to figure out how to stay
ahead of the competition. In fact, we had a hearing when I was the
chair of the small business committee with one of my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle whose constituents said to us: You know, small
business exporting is not for wimps.
I thought that was a great statement. Because what they were saying
is it is hard enough to be a small business person, take the financial
risk, build a company, have employees, but then you have to go to the
point of saying: Well, OK. I am going to ship my product to a new or
developing market. How am I going to make that work? It is not like you
can just go down the street and figure it out.
So this employer, a big manufacturer--medium-sized, small business
manufacturer but big in this small town said: You know, exporting is
not for wimps. You are taking risks. One of the things that we have
done as a country to help minimize the risk of that small business
owner who is helping the U.S. economy grow by expanding his market and
hiring new employees is to have a credit agency that provides the
insurance to his local bank so the deal can actually get executed.
Well, for some reason, many of my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle, after years and years and years of supporting the Export-Import
Bank, now all of a sudden do not want to support it anymore because the
Heritage Foundation is saying it is something they should not support.
In fact, they are giving bonus points on a ranking system as a way to
say: We will reward you for trying to get rid of what has been a viable
tool for small businesses in our economy.
So we hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will soon
wake up to the fact that the expiration of such an important tool is
not in the interests of our economy and not in the interests of small
businesses and will come up with a vehicle for this to get done.
Those on the other side of the aisle who think it is OK that the Bank
lapses are putting about $18 billion of deals at risk that are before
the Bank but will not get executed if the Bank closes at the end of
this month. So I hope my colleagues will work toward a solution on this
issue. I hope they understand the export credit agency is a job creator
for small business and will come up with a vehicle so that it must pass
by June 30.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation to
Senator McCain and Senator Jack Reed for their leadership on the Armed
Services Committee. It is unusual, indeed, and good for the Republic
that both of them are Academy graduates--though, the Navy and Army
Academies sometimes can be quite competitive. They get along very well
and respect each
[[Page S3656]]
other, and the committee has done a very good job.
I understand there is some concern by some of our Members concerning
the desire to spend more on nondefense money and perhaps use this bill
as a hostage to force the Congress to spend more money on other pieces
of legislation. I think that would be a very grievous mistake. I have
served on the Armed Services Committee now for 18 years, for quite a
long time on the Budget Committee. I have spent a lot of time looking
at the challenges we face.
I think the world has changed since the Budget Control Act was passed
in 2011. In 2011, the President told us: Don't worry. We are pulling
everybody out of Iraq and there are not going to be any more problems
in Iraq. He did not mention ISIS. In 2011, we did not have the Russian
invasion of Crimea. We did not have the continued vicious, violent
fight in Syria. We did not have the chaos that is happening in Libya.
We did not have the threat to the Iraqi Government's existence--we
thought it was on the right path. We did not have the problem in Yemen.
So this is just a different world. Unfortunately, we are going to
have to spend some more money for national defense. That is just the
way it is. I am a budget hawk. I have looked at the numbers. We are
going to have to spend some more money. However, what kind of argument
can be made, that if you have to spend more on national defense--and we
do have to make some tough choices on national defense--we have to
spend more on nondefense? What kind of an argument is that, just for
commonsense sake? If you were in a household budget and you had to
spend more money on one item, you would probably spend less on the
other items. So I would just say that the nondefense discretionary
spending that some of my colleagues are insisting need more money
before they would vote for the Defense bill, basically has flat funding
this year. There is not a cut in nondefense spending. It grows the next
4, 5 years at 2.5 percent growth a year, which is faster than the
economy has been growing, frankly. Last quarter the economy was
negative.
So we just have to understand that we cannot hold this bill hostage
to that kind of argument. I believe we are on the right track with a
good armed services bill, with very strong bipartisan support.
Apparently, over this budget issue, we lost a few votes in the
Committee, but it was a strong bipartisan vote for the bill. As far as
I can tell, there are few, if any, big differences on any provisions
that are in the bill. So that is good. I think America is going to be
pleased that our committee was able to work effectively. So we will
spend about $612 billion for Department of Defense and Department of
Energy defense issues. That is a large sum of money. It includes a base
budget of $497 billion and $89 billion in the Overseas Contingency
Operations fund. It is an increase in OCO over last year, but it is
still well below the peak of OCO's funding that we had in years past.
I just have to say, the world is a more dangerous place than it has
been. The legislation authorizes $135 billion for military personnel,
including pay, allowances, bonuses, death benefits, and permanent
change of station moves. It authorizes an across-the-board pay increase
of 1.3 percent for uniformed servicemembers in grades O-6, colonel and
below.
The legislation authorizes $32.2 billion for the defense and health
programs, authorizes fiscal year 2016 Active-Duty strength for the
Army--475,000. Some are saying we are going to have to go to 450,000.
Maybe we will have to go to 450,000. But right now, we need to slow
that reduction based on the world situation. The Navy forces will be
329,000; Marine Corps, 184,000; Air Force, 317,000. So this is a good
markup. I think it moves us in the right direction.
The strategic forces provisions contained in the 2016 authorization
bill are important. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic
Forces, I am pleased to inform my colleagues that the bill before them
represents a bipartisan consensus in support of the President's plans
and the Congress's plans to modernize nuclear forces and improve and
expand U.S. missile defense capability.
I want to express my particular appreciation to the ranking member,
Senator Donnelly of Indiana, who approaches these sometimes difficult
and controversial issues in a nonpartisan, constructive manner. He has
been closely involved in every aspect of the work of the subcommittee,
from the hearings we have held to the bill's final markup.
This year, the portion of the budget request falling under the
subcommittee's jurisdiction for missile defense, nuclear forces,
military space, and the Department of Energy atomic defense activities
included a total of $70.5 billion, including $22.5 billion for
procurement, $27.8 billion for research and development, $1.4 billion
for operations and maintenance, and $18.7 billion for the Department of
Energy.
The Missile Defense Agency. In the area of missile defense, the bill
fully funds the President's request of $8.2 billion for the Missile
Defense Agency. I think we agree with that. It recommends an increase
of $330 million for Israeli cooperative missile programs, including
U.S. coproduction of the David's Sling and Arrow systems of Israel, and
recommends an increase of $50 million to support modernization of the
interceptor used for the U.S. ground-based midcourse defense system
that would protect the homeland.
So this needs to be done. We have to get our interceptor systems at
the highest level, and there are some difficulties we face now with
that system. I think some of the criticisms or concerns are overstated,
but it is not where we want it to be, and we need to be moving in that
direction. It can be fixed. We know that. And there are just some
things we need to work on there.
The bill recommends an increase to facilitate MDA's ongoing
development of laser programs, which is a new system. It is different
from what it has been in the past. And I am proud--I believe it has
real potential and a lot of other things.
The nuclear forces issue is significant. The bill would fully fund
the President's budget request to operate, maintain, and modernize the
nuclear triad and associated systems. This is essential. We must
modernize these weapons, many of which are 40 years old and utilize
vacuum tubes in their systems.
The bill includes an additional $1 billion in 2016 to support the
recommendations of the nuclear enterprise review completed in 2014. We
need to listen to those review systems and respond appropriately. I
believe this mark does.
To ensure that the Department is planning for the full range of
nuclear conflict scenarios, the bill includes a provision that would
direct the Department of Defense to conduct a net assessment of the
global nuclear security environment, including the range of
contingencies and scenarios where U.S. nuclear forces might have to be
used.
I would just say personally that I think it is time for us, in this
dangerous world, to quit talking about nuclear zero--people who doubt
our resolve sometimes doubt that we are willing to follow through. I
wish zero would happen. It is not going to happen anytime soon, that is
for sure, so we are going to have to maintain a nuclear arsenal. We
need to talk about maintaining it, modernizing it, making it safer, and
making it more reliable and more accurate. Maybe we can reduce the
numbers some more, but we need to be talking less about reducing
numbers and more about assuring the world that we have the best nuclear
capabilities anywhere on the planet and that they are ready to be
deployed and can be deployed, Heaven forbid that would be necessary.
That is just why we have these forces.
The bill includes a provision that would require the Secretary of
Defense to develop options to respond to the Russian violation of the
1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, including
countervailing, counterforce, and active defense programs. We have
violations going on; those can't just be accepted.
The Department of Energy gets funding for its defense nuclear
capabilities, and we continue rigorous oversight of the warhead life
extension and construction program that would support a reliable and
modernized nuclear stockpile. I think we are on the right track there
for sure.
The bill includes a number of provisions to improve congressional
oversight of NNSA activities and track the
[[Page S3657]]
recommendations of the Congressional Advisory Panel on the Governance
of NNSA.
We need better coordination with the Department of Energy. I think we
are moving in that direction. Over the last several years, I have
pushed for it aggressively, and I think progress is being made. More
needs to be done.
Military Space. Our whole Defense Department depends more than most
people realize on our ability to maintain space capabilities, and I
think this bill funds those programs effectively. The bill would
require the Secretary of Defense, in a new idea, to designate one
individual to serve as the principal space control adviser who shall
act as the principal adviser to the Secretary of Defense on space
control activities. I think that will help.
With respect to program oversight, the bill would prohibit the use of
funds for the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program or the launch of
the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program satellite number 20 until
the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs provide a
certification that nonmaterial or lower cost solutions are
insufficient. Senator McCain has challenged us all to maintain
oversight of these programs and to contain costs. I think this can help
do that.
In conclusion, I restate my belief that our committee has worked in a
positive way. We have taken the advice of the President and of the
Defense Department. We have examined it in an appropriate way and
produced this bill that I believe will strengthen our national defense,
with strong backing to modernize and expand our missile defense
capabilities and to strengthen our deployed forces, allies, and
partners.
So I hope we don't have a fuss over demands to increase spending for
nondefense when we are supposed to be funding the Defense Department.
If there are arguments to be made in that regard, they should be made
on another bill when those bills come up and ought to be brought forth
in that fashion. I think it would be wrong and a big mistake to use the
Defense appropriations and authorization bills in any way as some sort
of a hostage to force spending in other areas.
The bill is a good bill. It puts us on the right course. It has broad
bipartisan support. If we can avoid those kinds of political
gymnastics, I think we will be in a good position to properly take care
of the people we have deployed to defend our country and to maintain
the security of our homeland.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Amendment No. 1456 to Amendment No. 1463
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1456, which is at
the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment
numbered 1456 to amendment No. 1463.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require additional information supporting long-range plans
for construction of naval vessels)
At the end of subtitle C of title X, add the following:
SEC. __. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SUPPORTING LONG-RANGE PLANS
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NAVAL VESSELS.
Section 231(b)(2)(C) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by inserting ``by ship class in both graphical and
tabular form'' after ``The estimated levels of annual
funding''.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in consultation with Senator Reed, I ask
unanimous consent that the next amendments in order be Reed No. 1521,
Portman No. 1522, Reed or designee amendment, followed by Cornyn No.
1486--whether those amendments will require yeas and nays or voice vote
we will figure out as we move through the amendments; further, that the
regular order with regard to these amendments be the order as I stated
regardless of the order offered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Rhode Island.
Amendment No. 1521 to Amendment No. 1463
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I call up Reed amendment No. 1521.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] proposes an
amendment numbered 1521 to amendment No. 1463.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To limit the availability of amounts authorized to be
appropriated for overseas contingency operations pending relief from
the spending limits under the Budget Control Act of 2011)
At the end of subtitle B of title XV, add the following:
SEC. 1523. LIMITATION ON THE AVAILABILITY OF OVERSEAS
CONTINGENCY OPERATION FUNDING SUBJECT TO RELIEF
FROM THE BUDGET CONTROL ACT.
(a) Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this title, of the total amount authorized to be appropriated
by this title for overseas contingency operations, not more
than $50,950,000,000 may be available for obligation and
expenditure unless--
(1) the discretionary spending limits imposed by section
251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985, as amended by section 302 of the Budget Control
Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25), on appropriations for the
revised security category and the revised nonsecurity
category are eliminated or increased in proportionally equal
amounts for fiscal year 2016 by any other Act enacted after
December 26, 2013; and
(2) if the revised security and the revised nonsecurity
category are increased as described in paragraph (1), the
amount of the increase is equal to or greater than the amount
in excess of the $50,950,000,000 that is authorized to be
appropriated by this title for security category activities.
(b) Use of Funds Available Under Satisfaction of
Limitation.--
(1) Transfer.--Any amounts authorized to be appropriated by
this title in excess of $50,950,000,000 that are available
for obligation and expenditure pursuant to subsection (a)
shall be transferred to applicable accounts of the Department
of Defense providing funds for programs, projects, and
activities other than for overseas contingency operations.
Any amounts so transferred to an account shall be merged with
amounts in the account to which transferred and available
subject to the same terms and conditions as otherwise apply
to amounts in such account.
(2) Construction of authority.--The authority to transfer
amounts under this subsection is in addition to any other
transfer authority in this Act.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am prepared to debate this. I have talked
about it before, but I am prepared to debate it extensively over the
next several days, and my colleagues are also.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Amendment No. 1522 to Amendment No. 1463
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the National
Defense Authorization Act and offer a bipartisan amendment with Senator
Peters that will strengthen this very important underlying legislation
we are working on.
As you know, the security threats around the world continue to grow.
A lot of experts believe that ISIS is now the best trained, best
equipped, and best financed terror organization we have ever seen. Al
Qaeda continues to threaten our own country. If you look at what is
going on around the world, Hamas and Hezbollah are constantly looking
to wage war on Israel. The regime in Iran remains the world's No. 1
state sponsor of terrorism, and they are pursuing nuclear weapons.
China continues to intimidate its neighbors in the South China Sea.
We live in a dangerous and volatile world. As a result of these
international events and developments, among others, it is absolutely
imperative that we maintain a strong national defense to protect our
homeland and to defend our allies.
With all these crises around the world competing for our attention,
we sometimes neglect another crisis, one that Chairman McCain has
constantly reminded us about, and that is the situation in Ukraine,
which could easily spin out of control at any time. In fact, news out
of eastern Ukraine this morning is particularly troubling. It appears
that the latest Russian and separatist attacks on Ukrainian positions
this morning may be the final blow to what was, in fact, a ceasefire in
name only.
[[Page S3658]]
Russia is increasingly aggressive on the European continent. We need
to be acknowledging that and dealing with that in this underlying
legislation.
I just returned from a trip to Ukraine in April, a year after I had
the privilege to be there leading the congressional delegation to
monitor the election of President Poroshenko. I went with my friend and
colleague, Senator Ben Cardin. A lot has happened since that last
election. I learned about this in my meetings most recently with Prime
Minister Yatsenyuk, President Poroshenko, and other Ukrainian
individuals. They have reached a pivotal moment in Ukraine.
The Ukrainian people have sacrificed in hopes of securing a
democratic future for their country. However, they need our help. They
need sustained economic, military, and political support from the
United States and from our NATO allies. It is absolutely critical to
this vision of a democratic Ukraine, a free Ukraine, coming to
fruition.
In my view, the people of Ukraine have made a very clear and
unequivocal choice, and we need to stand with them. Their choice is to
pursue a pro-Western, democratic path. Their government has been
responsive to that choice by making progress in fighting decades of
endemic corruption that has left the country weak and, frankly,
unprepared for the Russian aggression that has occurred. However, none
of these reforms will mean much if Ukraine is unable to secure its
borders or defend its sovereignty.
The NDAA before us has a lot of important provisions related to this
crisis in Crimea and along the eastern border of Ukraine. I applaud
Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed for their efforts on it. I hope
we will be able to entertain a few other amendments in this process
that will even strengthen the U.S. posture and support of Ukraine.
I look forward to being on the floor later this week to talk about
this situation in Ukraine in more detail. This afternoon, however, I
have come to the floor to talk about a related amendment that is of
great importance as this situation in Eastern Europe continues to
destabilize.
Following my visit to Ukraine this spring, I visited Latvia. I went
there because I wanted to spend some time with U.S. soldiers from an
Abrams tank company who were there on a NATO mission. I am sure most of
my colleagues know that recent force structure changes moved our two
heavy armored brigades out of Europe. This armored unit I saw in Latvia
and the other two companies in the Baltics today are only there on a
rotational basis this spring, and they will soon return home to the
United States, in this case to Fort Stewart.
These units are sending an important message to our allies, such as
those in the Baltics--and, believe me, the Latvians are extremely
appreciative--but they are only temporary. What they are really looking
for is a permanent presence. That is what sends the stronger message.
The big news when I was over there was that there was a road march
being conducted by the 2nd Calvary Regiment through Central and Eastern
Europe. The 2nd Calvary Regiment is in Europe, but they were taking
this road march through Central and Eastern Europe. This was taking
their Strykers, which is the only permanently stationed U.S. armored
vehicle in Europe, on roads and through small towns--towns that fear an
increasingly aggressive Russia on their doorstep.
The unit was doing all it could to help reassure our allies and
demonstrate U.S. resolve, but, frankly, they were doing all they could
with what they have, and what they have is not enough. They do not have
what they need.
This unit has communicated this urgently to us here in the Congress.
Their weapons systems are, frankly, inadequate to meet their potential
mission requirements if they are called upon. They need a more powerful
gun. They need to replace their .50-caliber machine gun with a 30-
millimeter cannon. The soldiers understand that. The Army understands
that.
The Army has already identified this requirement, and prior to the
deteriorating situation in Europe, they slated to field this improved
weapons systems to these Strykers starting in 2020. So they knew it was
a problem. They knew they had to address it. Then we saw this
deteriorating situation in Europe caused by Crimea's being annexed and
now the situation on the eastern border of Ukraine.
The soldiers manning these Strykers today know that 2020 is just too
far in the future, and Army leadership agrees with them. On March 30 of
this year, U.S. Army Europe submitted an operational needs statement to
Army Headquarters to address this urgent capability gap in the 2nd
Cavalry Regiment. Specifically, according to the needs statement, the
unit lacks ``the lethality of a direct fire weapons system to engage
similar units or those supported by light-armored vehicles.''
On April 22, Army Headquarters validated this high priority need and
assigned this requirement to the program manager for execution. To
shave several years off of the fielding timeline, however, the Army
needs additional funding in fiscal year 2016. They need it now.
That is exactly what this amendment does. The review of these
requirements by the Army was occurring while the Defense bill was being
marked up in committee. The House appropriators, the first to mark up
since the Army communicated its requirement, have fully funded the
need.
I want to thank Chairman McCain and the ranking member for their
consideration and for including this important funding into this bill,
even though the urgent need was communicated only very recently.
By the way, just to be clear, because I have heard discussion about
this on the floor today, this turret and gun system--the cannon
itself--will be competed, and that is appropriate.
This increase in funding is fully offset by taking additional
reductions from the expected surplus from the foreign currency
fluctuations as identified by GAO. The additional reductions taken by
this amendment still won't match the reductions, by the way, that the
House has taken from these accounts.
I want to thank the Members of our body here in the Senate for their
support of this amendment. Senator Peters, my colleague from Michigan,
has been my partner on the other side of the aisle in this effort. He
has been a strong supporter of giving our soldiers what they need in
Europe and sending that strong message we talked about earlier.
Senator Cotton talked about this issue in the Armed Services
Committee. He is chairman of the Airland Subcommittee, and he has
worked hard on this, as well as have other Armed Services committee
members, including Senator Inhofe, Senator Sessions, Senator Wicker,
Senator Toomey, who is our Presiding Officer, and, of course, Senator
McCain.
This amendment is of vital importance for our forward-deployed
troops. It also sends a critical message at this time of great
uncertainty in Europe. I urge my colleagues to support this. It is
bipartisan and it is needed, and I urge its swift adoption.
Because of that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside
the pending amendment in order to call up amendment No. 1522.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Portman] proposes an amendment
numbered 1522 to amendment No. 1463.
Mr. PORTMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide additional amounts for procurement and for
research, development, test, and evaluation for Stryker Lethality
Upgrades, and to provide an offset)
At the end of title I, add the following:
Subtitle E--Army Programs
SEC. 161. STRYKER LETHALITY UPGRADES.
(a) Additional Amount for Procurement, Army.--
(1) In general.--The amount authorized to be appropriated
for fiscal year 2016 by section 101 for procurement is hereby
increased by $314,000,000, with the amount of the increase to
be available for procurement for the Army for Wheeled and
Tracked Combat Vehicles for Stryker (mod) Lethality Upgrades.
(2) Supplement not supplant.--The amount available under
paragraph (1) for
[[Page S3659]]
procurement for Stryker (mod) Lethality Upgrades is in
addition to any other amounts available in this Act for
procurement for the Army for Stryker (mod) Lethality
Upgrades.
(b) Additional Amount for Rdt&e, Army.--
(1) In general.--The amount authorized to be appropriated
for fiscal year 2016 by section 201 for research,
development, test, and evaluation is hereby increased by
$57,000,000, with the amount of the increase to be available
for research, development, test, and evaluation for the Army
for the Combat Vehicle Improvement Program for Stryker
Lethality Upgrades.
(2) Supplement not supplant.--The amount available under
paragraph (1) for research, development, test, and evaluation
for Stryker Lethality Upgrades is in addition to any other
amounts available in this Act for research, development,
test, and evaluation for the Army for Stryker Lethality
Upgrades.
(c) Offset.--The aggregate amount authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal year 2016 by division A is hereby
reduced by $371,000,000, with the amount of the reduction to
be achieved through anticipated foreign currency gains in
addition to any other anticipated foreign currency gains
specified in the funding tables in division D.
Mr. PORTMAN. I yield the floor.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, while the Senator from Ohio is here, I want
first of all to commend him for his interest in the Stryker program. It
is one of those vehicles that have been extraordinarily effective in
protecting our soldiers in their efforts both in Afghanistan and Iraq.
It is a critical program.
The amendment would add $371 million of funding. We all understand
this is a very difficult budget environment, and I would point out that
the Army submitted their unfunded requirement list to the committee in
March. This was not on their request. However, it is my understanding
that the request for additional funding is driven by a new requirement
that actually became evident in April of 2015. So the issue could have
been that they weren't as aware of it as they should have been. But for
the record, this is not part of the unfunded requirement list of the
Army.
We did not have the chance, as a result, to look at this as an
approach that we would include in our Defense appropriations bill. It
was not literally on the radar screen until April, and it didn't come
up formally with their unfunded request. So I am concerned that these
lethality improvements have not been fully vetted by the committee, by
the Department, and also by the Department of Defense.
There is another issue here, too. This is a first step in a multiyear
program, and we are not quite sure at this point, over the next several
years, how much more money we would have to commit to production,
testing, training, and logistics.
The other area of concern--not just in terms of looking closely at
the program, the need, and the long-term budgetary effects--is the pay-
for, which is an offset for foreign currency accounts. The Department's
request has already been reduced by $550 million. We have literally
taken that money from their currency accounts, and now we are going to
take another $371 million. So we are really getting very, very close to
what this account can bear in terms of costs added to it.
Again, I think since it is O&M--that is the basic account we are
taking it from to put in a platform--it raises the other issue that is
so central to everything the chairman and many of us have been doing,
which is how do we keep the Army ready, and there is a trade-off. There
is a trade-off between new platforms and making sure the soldiers we
have are training on the existing platforms and doing their work.
So I would express some strong reservations. I would be happy to work
with the Senator from Ohio. I understand this is driven by his
commitment to making sure our soldiers have the best equipment in the
world.
I yield the floor.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, first, I appreciate the ranking member's
comments, and I look forward to working with him on this. We talked
about this on the floor a moment ago. This is something the Army has
requested. They came late; he is absolutely right. They did make a
request in March, in terms of submitting this operational needs
statement, but it wasn't until April 22 that they actually validated
this high priority need and assigned it to the program manager. So the
committee didn't have the opportunity to look at it as they have
others.
I will say it is urgent, and having just been over there and seeing
one of those temporary armored companies about to leave, they need this
badly. What they are saying is that the 30-millimeter cannon is
necessary to go up against any potential enemy, and the .50-caliber
machine gun simply is not. So this is not moving more Abrams tanks into
the area. It is taking these Strykers and upgrading them, and they have
identified this as an urgent need.
So I look forward to working with the ranking member on this. I hope
we can work through this, even in the next several days here, to get
this done, because it is so important. It will be competed. It is a
turret and gun system. It is something that does require an offset, and
that offset--by the way, the account the GAO has identified as having a
certain amount of funding does have that much room left in it and more,
we are told. And also the House has already taken more out of this
currency fluctuation account than the committee has.
So I again thank the ranking member for working on this. I know he
too has a strong commitment to our soldiers who are there to be sure
they have what they need in order to complete their mission in an
increasingly volatile environment in Europe.
With that, I yield back for my colleague from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Amendment No. 1486 to Amendment No. 1463
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as we begin this very important discussion
about how we go about the business of defending our country and
preserving the peace and our national security, I think it is really
important we look at all of the elements of American power. We are very
familiar with the fact that we have the world's best military--best
equipped, best trained, with the most technologically advanced weapons
systems. But we also ought to look at America's other sources of great
power, and that means things such as soft power.
Let me explain. Here is the problem. Many NATO countries--our allies
in Europe, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries--many of
which are former satellites of the Soviet Union and are now being
intimidated by the Russian Federation, rely heavily on energy resources
from Russia, creating what I think can euphemistically be called a
strategic vulnerability. Many of them are just downright scared about
what it means in terms of their ability to survive a Russian
intimidation.
According to a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed by former National
Security Advisor Steven Hadley and former Secretary of Defense Leon
Panetta, 14 countries that are a part of NATO buy 15 percent or more of
their oil from Russia.
The distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who is
not on the floor right now, famously said: Russia is a gas station
masquerading as a nation. It produces prodigious sources of energy,
but, unfortunately, they view energy as one of their weapons.
So the fact that 14 of these NATO countries buy 15 percent or more of
their oil from Russia is a real vulnerability for them. Several other
countries in Eastern and Central Europe buy more than 50 percent of
their energy supply from Russia. As I said, Russia has huge sources of
oil and gas, but they are using them not only as a source of economic
strength and to provide for the Russian people, but they are using them
as a source of intimidation and coercion.
For example, in January of 2009, Russia effectively turned off the
natural gas to Ukraine. This affected at least 10 countries in Europe
that rely upon natural gas that crosses Ukraine from Russia. According
to a report released last fall from the European Commission, several
countries in Europe could
[[Page S3660]]
lose up to 60 percent of their gas supply if their supply lines from
Russia are disrupted. That is the problem.
Here is what I propose is one of the things we can do about it. The
United States, of course, has experienced an energy renaissance in
recent years, thanks to the technology produced by the private sector--
most specifically, the use of fracking in conjunction with horizontal
drilling--which has turned America into an energy powerhouse. Not that
many years ago, people were talking about peak oil. In other words,
they basically were making the argument that all the oil that could
have been produced was being produced, and we would now then be in a
period of decline. That proved to be wrong.
Now, thanks to this huge production of American energy, we know we
can use our ample energy resources not only to supply our own needs
here at home but to use the surplus to reassure our allies and our
partners and to reduce their dependence on bad actors, such as Russia
and Iran.
If we think about it, some of the sanctions which we have deployed
against both Iran and Russia for their bad behavior--one of the most
effective ones is the indirect sanction of lower oil and gas prices
because, frankly, Mr. Putin has calculated that oil prices would remain
very high, and when they get low, that means he doesn't have the
financial wherewithal in order to make some of the mischief that he and
Iran are so noted for.
The United States, of course, has significantly diversified our
energy resources. The United States has consumed the lowest level of
imported petroleum in the last 30 years. That was this last year. Let
me repeat that lest it be lost.
Last year, the United States consumed the lowest level of imported
petroleum in the last 30 years. According to the International Energy
Agency, today the United States is the largest oil and natural gas
liquids producer in the world, surpassing Saudi Arabia, for example.
I have filed a number of amendments, and I intend to call up one of
those in a moment, but let me describe briefly the amendments we have
filed that I think help provide some progress toward a solution for the
problem I have described.
In light of this new geopolitical landscape, I have offered several
amendments that would further our strategic position in the world while
also strengthening our allies, making them less vulnerable to the
intimidation and bullying tactics of the Russian Federation under
Vladimir Putin. These amendments aim to help NATO and our other allies
in Europe diversify their energy resources and lessen their dependency
on energy supplies of some of our major adversaries such as Russia and
Iran.
The first amendment would point out the existing authorities the
President already has under current law related to energy exports if he
determines it is in our national interests. Of course, this is an
authority under current law that applies not only to the present
occupant of the White House but would also apply to his successor.
This amendment expresses the sense of the Congress that the President
should exercise these current authorities to aid our allies and
partners in Europe and elsewhere. To help the United States get smart
on how Russia currently uses its energy program as a weapon against our
allies and partners, this amendment would mandate also an intelligence
assessment to better understand the vulnerabilities of NATO and our
other allies and partners in Europe. Then, it would also expand the
requirements of the Pentagon's annual Russia military power report to
mandate analysis of Russia's ability to use energy supplies as a tool
of coercion or intimidation against our allies and partners in Europe.
So this would restate the present authorities the President of the
United States currently has to produce and sell oil and gas to our
allies in Europe, such as Ukraine and other NATO allies. It would
require an additional intelligence assessment to make sure we
understand fully the implications of this vulnerability that Europe and
our NATO allies have to Russia and its intimidation tactics. Third, it
would expand the requirements of a current report that the Pentagon
makes on an annual basis called the Russian military power report to
mandate an analysis of Russia's ability to use energy supplies as a
tool of coercion or intimidation.
Two other amendments which we filed--which I will not call up at this
time--would help reduce the need for U.S. allies to purchase energy
from Russia and Iran. It would do this by adding a specific exception
to the law that would allow crude and natural gas exports to allies and
partners when their energy security is compromised.
For example, if a NATO ally or partner--such as Ukraine or Japan--
requests additional energy exports from the United States, the
President must approve it in a timely fashion if he finds it to be in
the national interests of the United States. This would provide our
allies and our partners with an additional source of fuel and a little
additional reassurance that if they are subjected to the kind of
intimidation and coercion I mentioned a moment ago, that we, as their
friend and their ally, would supply them with an alternative source of
energy they need in order to keep the lights on and keep their economy
running.
Finally, we filed an amendment that would amend the Natural Gas Act
to require the Secretary of Energy to approve liquefied natural gas
exports to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries and other
named partners and allies. This uses the same preferential treatment
that is already given to our free-trade agreement partners, which are
automatically deemed to be in the public interest.
In conclusion, these amendments are designed to address a very
specific problem and a very specific vulnerability of some of our
closest allies in Europe and to relieve them from some of the pressure
of Russian intimidation and coercion when Russia attempts to use energy
as a weapon. We can use this as an important element of our soft power
to help our allies relieve this coercion and intimidation.
These amendments would strengthen the strategic hand of the United
States in a world that grows more complicated by the day, not to
mention more dangerous.
I encourage my colleagues to support them and, by doing so, take a
long-term view of our own national security as well as the peace and
stability of some of our most trusted allies and partners.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending
amendment in order to call up amendment No. 1486.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn] proposes an amendment
numbered 1486 to amendment No. 1463.
Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require reporting on energy security issues involving
Europe and the Russian Federation, and to express the sense of Congress
regarding ways the United States could help vulnerable allies and
partners with energy security)
At the end of subtitle D of title XII, add the following:
SEC. 1257. REPORTING ON ENERGY SECURITY ISSUES INVOLVING
EUROPE AND THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.
(a) Additional Matters in Annual Report on Military and
Security Developments Involving the Russian Federation.--
Section 1245(b) of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck''
McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2015 (Public Law 113-291; 128 Stat. 3566) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (15) as paragraph (16); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (14) the following new
paragraph:
``(15) An assessment of Russia's ability to use energy
supplies, particularly natural gas and oil, as tools of
coercion or intimidation to undermine the security of NATO
members or other neighboring countries.''.
(b) Report on European Energy Security and Related
Vulnerabilities.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Director of National
Intelligence, in consultation with the Secretary of State,
shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a
report assessing the energy security of NATO members, other
European nations who share a border with the Russian
Federation, and Moldova.
(2) Elements.--The report required under paragraph (1)
shall include assessments of the following issues:
[[Page S3661]]
(A) The extent of reliance by these nations on the Russian
Federation for supplies of oil and natural gas.
(B) Whether such reliance creates vulnerabilities that
negatively affect the security of those nations.
(C) The magnitude of those vulnerabilities.
(D) The impacts of those vulnerabilities on the national
security and economic interests of the United States.
(E) Any other aspect that the Director determines to be
relevant to these issues.
(3) Appropriate congressional committees defined.--In this
subsection, the term ``appropriate congressional committees''
means--
(A) the Committee on Armed Services, the Select Committee
on Intelligence, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of
the Senate; and
(B) the Committee on Armed Services, the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, and the Committee on Foreign
Affairs of the House of Representatives.
SEC. ___. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON WAYS THE UNITED STATES COULD
HELP VULNERABLE ALLIES AND PARTNERS WITH ENERGY
SECURITY.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (Public
Law 94-163) gives the President discretion to allow crude oil
and natural gas exports that the President determines to be
consistent with the national interest;
(2) United States allies and partners in Europe and Asia
have requested access to United States oil and natural gas
exports to limit their vulnerability and to diversify their
supplies, including in the face of Russian aggression and
Middle East volatility; and
(3) the President should exercise existing authorities
related to natural gas and crude oil exports to help aid
vulnerable United States allies and partners, consistent with
the national interest.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesies of the
chairman and the ranking member to allow this amendment to be called up
and to give me a chance to explain its importance and how it fits into
the national security strategy of the United States. I know we don't
typically tend to think of our energy resources as being an element of
our national strength and power that we can project beyond our borders
in a way that helps aid our allies and friends and reduces the
influence of our adversaries, such as Iran and Russia, but I hope my
colleagues will take a close look at this amendment and, when the time
comes, vote to support it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1540 to Amendment No. 1463
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment and, on behalf of Senator Bennet, call up amendment
No. 1540.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so orderd.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for Mr. Bennet,
proposes an amendment numbered 1540 to amendment No. 1463.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require the Comptroller General of the United States to
brief and submit a report to Congress on the administration and
oversight by the Department of Veterans Affairs of contracts for the
design and construction of major medical facility projects)
At the end of subtitle G of title X, add the following:
SEC. 1085. COMPTROLLER GENERAL BRIEFING AND REPORT ON MAJOR
MEDICAL FACILITY PROJECTS OF DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS.
(a) Briefing.--Not later than 270 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the
United States shall provide to the appropriate committees of
Congress a briefing on the administration and oversight by
the Department of Veterans Affairs of contracts for the
design and construction of major medical facility projects,
as defined in section 8104(a)(3)(A) of title 38, United
States Code.
(b) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit
to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on the
administration and oversight described in subsection (a).
(c) Elements.--The briefing required by subsection (a) and
the report required by subsection (b) shall each include an
examination of the following:
(1) The processes used by the Department for overseeing and
assuring the performance of construction design and
construction contracts for major medical facility projects,
as so defined.
(2) Any actions taken by the Department to improve the
administration of such contracts.
(3) Such opportunities for further improvement of the
administration of such contracts as the Comptroller General
considers appropriate.
(d) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this
section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress''
means--
(1) the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Subcommittee
on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related
Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate;
and
(2) the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Subcommittee
on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related
Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Nuclear Agreement With Iran
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, once again, the truth proves elusive
when we are dealing with Iran's unpredictable regime. I refer to a New
York Times article that is entitled ``Iran's Nuclear Stockpile Grows,
Complicating Negotiations.'' Among elements of the article--and I know
the article is being disparaged by the State Department; I will talk
about that in a moment--but among the elements of the article is the
fact that Iran's stockpile of nuclear fuel has increased about 20
percent over the last 18 months of negotiations--increased--increased
20 percent in the last 18 months of negotiations.
In essence, we are to be convinced ``that Iran will have to shrink
its stockpile by 96 percent in a matter of months after a deal is
signed, even while it continues to produce new material and has
demonstrated little success in reducing its current stockpile.''
I am reading from the Times article.
It goes on to say, in part, ``That means Iran . . . would have to rid
itself of more than nine tons of its stockpile in a matter of months.''
In a matter of months.
Now, this is a continuing challenge that we have as we look at these
negotiations. We are supposedly in the final months. The end of this
month is when we are hopefully going to come to some type of an
agreement. We see what has been a challenge from the very beginning. It
is a challenge I have cited time and time again.
How much of these numbers are done because of Iran's desire to push
the numbers upward? Is that for a political purpose? Is it for a
negotiating purpose? Is it for a technological inability? Whatever it
is, the numbers published Friday by the International Atomic Energy
Agency, the independent agency for which so much of the Joint Plan of
Action and any future agreement that might be consummated--this is the
entity we are depending upon. Well, this entity has said that Iran has
continued to enrich uranium aggressively, even though it knew it was
not meeting its goals of converting its stockpile into reactor rods.
This is a real question that I have.
Another independent group, the Bipartisan Policy Center, said in
February that Iran has failed to do the conversion.
We knew from the beginning it was going to be difficult for the
Iranians to blend down rather than ship out because they have this
aversion to shipping out. This was all possible if they would ship out,
but they have consistently said they will not ship out their fuel. We
knew it would be a concern if they weren't able to do what they pledged
to do and, frankly, I am concerned.
I am concerned this is just another diplomatic sleight of hand by an
untrustworthy negotiating partner. I am concerned Iran is still saying
it will not ship out excess low-enriched uranium but rather blend it
down and
[[Page S3662]]
store it. I am concerned this is more of an issue than the
administration is willing to concede, particularly if there is no deal,
and we, in essence, with sanctions relief have paid them to convert,
and then they walk away with massive amounts of low-enriched uranium
that can be fed into their centrifuges and converted to highly enriched
uranium.
Let's be clear. The tracking and verification of uranium mines and
mills--which were often talked about as part of why we will have a
safeguard if there is a deal--to centrifuges only works if Iran gets
rid of its stockpiles. It doesn't work any other way. It does not work
any other way. The New York Times has identified a real problem with
the mechanisms being used to control Iran's nuclear stockpile. The
simplest solution would be to ship Iran's stockpile out of the country.
This would prevent any question of a buildup of material. However, Iran
has refused to do this--at least to this date publicly--and opened the
potential for Iranian manipulation about what is going on.
There may be technical reasons for the 20-percent increase in low-
enriched uranium, but one certainly has to wonder: Are they delaying?
Are they really having problems building a conversion facility--
something I specifically expressed concerns about early in the
process--or is this simply another attempt to play fast and loose with
the truth, cover it up, and buy time? Is it a negotiating posture? So
as they come closer and closer to the deadline, they have all of this
enriched uranium, and there is this compulsion to strike a deal--not a
good deal but a deal at any cost.
While this may not be a technical violation of the Joint Plan of
Action, the Iranians were supposed to have reached the agreed-upon
goal. The fact is, midway through the process, we are told there could
be a delay. But clearly the timetable has slipped even further away.
I know the State Department has gone after the article, which, in
part, is based on facts from the International Atomic Energy
Administration. The administration has gone out of their way to attack
the premise of the article because I guess anything that would upset
the fundamental belief that we have to have a deal at any cost is
problematic for the State Department.
But I have to be honest with you. As I read the State Department's
response, it means to me that their main response appears to be that
Iran is not in technical violation of the Joint Plan of Action because
it still has a month left to transform all of the extra low-enriched
uranium that it has created in recent months into oxide.
This pushback is pretty much something we should have expected
because it is the only argument the administration actually has
available to it to explain this, and it is the same argument they used
when many of us were raising the concerns that Iran was busting through
their oil export caps set under the Joint Plan of Action every month.
We were consistently told: Well, next month the Iranians will ship even
less, and therefore it will all even out. Well, the fact is that when
time ran out, the exports of Iran remained way above what was allowed,
and then the administration shifted to an explanation only to suggest
that certain types of oil just do not count. There is always a reach
here to try to get a justification for Iran.
I think the State Department's response totally misses the point of
the New York Times article. The upshot of the piece is not that there
is no way for Iran to meet its Joint Plan of Action obligations in
theory--in theory; it is that Iranians have stockpiled so much low-
enriched uranium that it is all but impossible for them to meet those
objectives in practice. The Iranians may have calculated that they do
not have to do so and that the administration is not about to blow up
an impending nuclear deal over a violation of past agreements if those
violations bear directly on Iranian intentions and capabilities to
implement the agreement.
There is another group who has been before the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee. When I was the chairman, we called them several
times, and I think Senator Corker, the new chair, has a deep respect
for them as well--the Institute for Science and International Security.
They have posted their analysis of this specific question: Will Iran be
able to meet its obligation regarding its 5 percent low-enriched
uranium?
In the response to that question, the Institute for Science and
International Security, David Albright, who is arguably one of the most
respected voices on Iran's nuclear program, comes to this conclusion:
Iran has fallen behind in its pledge to convert its newly produced low
enriched uranium hexafluoride into oxide form. There are legitimate
questions about whether Iran can produce all of the requisite LEU
oxide.
Iran has fed a total of 2,720 kilograms of 3.5 percent low-enriched
uranium hexafluoride into the EUPP--the vehicle by which they
ultimately have the conversion--but it has not fed any 3.5 percent low-
enriched uranium hexafluoride into the plant since November of 2014--
November of last year.
By the end of June--they go on to say--in order to meet its
commitment under the Joint Plan of Action, Iran must finish converting
the 2,720 kilograms of low-enriched uranium into oxide, introduce it
into that vehicle and convert it into oxide.
They go on to say: Thus, Iran has clearly fallen behind in its pledge
under the Joint Plan of Action.
On a policy level, the institute's analysis emphasizes that Iran's
refusal to meet its obligation ``show the risk posed by relying on
technical solutions that have not yet been demonstrated by Iran''--so
technical solutions that we say: If, in fact, they can do this, this
may be part of our way in which we can strike a deal, but Iran has not
demonstrated meeting those technical solutions. Iran is under sanctions
and in the middle of negotiations. Yet, we still cannot rely upon them.
I think this is a serious concern not to be minimized. This is at the
same time that Iran is boarding commercial ships in the Strait of
Hormuz, firing at some of them. This is the same Iran that is in the
midst, as a country, of going ahead and is engaged as the largest state
sponsor of terrorism in the world, in Lebanon, in Syria, in Iraq, in
Yemen. Yet, even as we are in the midst of the negotiation, all of
these things are taking place, and even if we want to wall off all of
the nonnuclear acts of Tehran that have to worry us and concern us in
terms of our national security and international order, as it relates
to the nuclear portfolio, they do not seem to be headed in the
direction of what is clearly necessary in order to meet their
obligations under the Joint Plan of Action. They do not seem, at least
in this point in time, to be technically capable of doing that even
though these are the fixes we are looking for.
At the end of the day, you have to really wonder why we continue to
find a way to excuse Iran in every element. We had something that was
found independently and reported to the United Nations Security Council
commission that deals with questions. They were ultimately fueling one
of their rods. This was raised and, again, it was responded to. It was
deemed de minimis. We had oil exports greater than what they were
allowed. We explained it away, saying: Well, certain types of oil were
not counted. We have a set of circumstances where they have raised
their fuel capacity, not lowered it, even as they are headed toward an
agreement in which they have to dramatically reduce it.
So I have a real problem in consistently seeing the willingness to
stretch to allow Iran to get where it is today. It is that view which
let the world, unfortunately, allow Iran to get to the point of a
precipice of having nuclear power that it can convert to a nuclear
weapon. That is not in the national interests and security of the
United States.
I have the intention in this period of time to consistently come to
the floor and raise these issues as they evolve and rear their heads at
a critical moment. I think we have to be very committed to knowing the
truth here.
While all of us aspire to have an agreement that can truly stop
Iran's path toward a nuclear weapon and that that be something which is
not just limited in time because the Persians have for 5,000 years been
trying to have the power in the hegemonic interests they have--they are
closer to it, from my perspective, than at any other
[[Page S3663]]
time. If they already have their people suffering under sanctions as a
result of their actions and they are using the resources they have not
to help their people but to continue to spread terrorism throughout the
region, then we can only wonder, when a deal is struck and large flows
of money begin to return to Iran, what they will do with that money. It
seems to me that you would have a strategy set up to think about that
before you even get to a deal, assuming you can achieve a good deal.
But when I see them taking actions that, in my view, may not be a
technical violation but are contrary to everything they are supposed to
do, when you have independent groups such as the Institute for Science
and David Albright and when you have the IAEA making these
observations, for me, it has alarm bells and those alarm bells are
worrying.
I think it is incredibly important, on what I believe is one of the
most significant national security and international security order
questions that will come before the Senate, that we not just look the
other way but that we challenge, when these facts continue to come
forward, about what is the truth behind them and what does it mean for
any potential agreement and how we continue to judge Iran's actions in
light of any potential agreement.
I know we are told constantly: This is not on hope, and that it is
all going to be verified. It is not on trust, but it is all going to be
verified. But I have to be honest with you--it depends when you keep
defining what is or is not permissible. From my perspective, where we
are headed is not what I think is in the national interest and security
of the United States.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I know that we have a lineup of speakers.
We have a speaker from Hawaii who is going to be here shortly, at which
time I would be very pleased to yield, but I wish to make a couple of
comments.
First, the fact that we are getting to this bill is great, because if
you look at the last few years, we have not had a chance to do this
until late in the year. The last 2 years it was December before we
actually got around to it. It could have been a real crisis, because I
think most of us in the Senate know that if we had gone to December 31,
all kinds of things would have stopped--funding for a lot of our
reenlistment bonuses and other things.
I applaud the chairman for using his influence to get this bill on
floor so we could go ahead and get it passed. It is something that we
need to make sure the people who are out there risking their lives on a
day-to-day basis know and that they know we are having this as our top
priority.
I want to make one comment about sequestration. People are talking
about putting equal amounts of increases--not just in the military or
in the defense portion but also in the other portions of government,
such as the IRS and the EPA--without recognition that as we went
through the funding mechanism, we were taking money out of military on
a 50-50 basis with nondefense moneys, while the military is only 16
percent of the budget. So we have already started at a great
disadvantage.
As far as the OCO is concerned, that is kind of a desperate effort.
It is not the way we should be doing it, but we must have the support
and keep the readiness up with our troops.
We do have some good things that are in this bill, such as funding
for the KC-46, the Paladin Integrated Management Program, the Long-
Range Strike Bomber, and the F-35. So we are at least treading water
here.
I wish to say one thing, though, that I didn't approve of in this
bill, and we may try to make some changes on the floor. It is the BRAC
process. I think we all know that the base realignment and closing
process has been going on since 1987. This is no time to be doing
something with that. I am very pleased that we are able to continue
that and not see one for a period of time.
One thing that is consistent about BRAC rounds is that they all cost
a lot of money in the first 5 years. People, if there is ever a time in
the history of this body and of the military when we can't afford to
take money out, it is now.
We have addressed a couple of things. There are some things that need
to be fixed as we move on to the floor. I know that our chairman,
Senator McCain, has been asking people to bring down their amendments.
I think we should be doing that, and I anticipate a lot of amendments
will be coming down.
I wish to say one thing about Gitmo. There is this myth out there
that somehow the terrorists think that we hurt people at Gitmo. Somehow
they think it is something that should be altered and should be
changed, but I don't believe that is the case.
I see the Senator from Hawaii is on the floor. I am cutting into his
time right now. So I am going to continue comments throughout the rest
of the afternoon, tomorrow, and yield back the time to him, which I
have taken away from him for a few minutes.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Environment
and Public Works Committee for his gentlemanliness and for our ability
to work together in spaces where we agree and when we have to disagree,
to be agreeable about it. I really appreciate that relationship.
Mr. President, I wish to talk about climate change, and I ask
unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Climate Change
Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, climate change is real, it is caused by
humans, it is urgent, and it is solvable. Climate change is real, it is
caused by humans, it is urgent, and it is solvable. This year we have
had some debates about climate change on the Senate floor and a
majority of Members, including more than a few Republicans, have
admitted that climate change is real and caused by humans. We have
passed bipartisan amendments calling for the United States to reduce
carbon pollution and to fight human-induced climate change. That is a
necessary step in the right direction, but it is not enough.
We need to take real action. We need to focus on real solutions, and
here is the exciting part. There are plenty of real-world cost-
effective solutions to climate change. A lot of them empower every day
Americans, giving them more control in terms of how they get their
energy.
One of these solutions is distributed energy generation, or DG. DG is
creating a real revolution in the energy sector by putting individuals
and homeowners in control. The ability to own carbon-free power
generation is helping everyday Americans realize that even though
Washington is slow in the extreme on these questions, they can be part
of the solution.
DG systems are small, but they provide major benefits. They can be
more efficient, help promote national security, reduce electricity and
fuel bills, and provide power during blackouts. Most important for
fighting climate change, distributed generation lets us take advantage
of major advances in clean energy. Through the use of renewable DG,
such as small-scale wind, solar, and geothermal, Americans can take
simple steps to reduce their carbon footprint.
This is the important thing about distributed generation, and we are
seeing it across the country in red States and blue States, among
conservatives and liberals. You don't have to be as passionate as I am
about climate change to be enthusiastic about distributed generation,
because nobody wants to pay more than is necessary on their electricity
bill. The idea of generating your own electricity is very attractive to
individuals--regardless of their ideology, regardless of their partisan
affiliation. This has tremendous potential to save individuals,
business, and institutions real money.
DG is changing the nature of the U.S. energy system. It is especially
true in Hawaii, where more than 12 percent of our residents have
rooftop solar, which is by far the highest rate in the United
[[Page S3664]]
States. Rooftop solar is the most well-known renewable DG resource--and
for good reason. The price of solar panels has come down 80 percent
since 2008, and the cost to install residential systems has dropped by
about half since 2010--80 percent cheaper since 2008 for the panels and
about half as expensive just to get them on a roof since 2010. The
prices are going down and down, and the economics are changing. What we
thought was possible with respect to distributed generation a couple of
years ago is changing everything we know about the U.S. energy system.
In 2006, about 30,000 homes in the United States had rooftop solar.
By 2013, that number had risen to over 400,000 homes. According to the
Energy Information Administration and the Department of Energy, as many
as 4 million homes could have solar panels within 5 years. But DG is
far more than just rooftop solar. Small wind systems sized for homes,
schools, farms, and remote communities are taking off, with over 74,000
turbines installed in all 50 States.
One family in upstate New York installed a small wind turbine on its
farm in 2012. Rated at 50 kilowatts, it will actually run at 60 or 70
when the wind is strong. They liked it so much, three branches of the
family decided to lease three 10-kilowatt turbines for their homes,
expecting to make back their initial investment within 5 years and to
make a profit after that.
Ed Doody, one of those farmers, says:
My wife says it's like change in your pocket. When it's
running, you make a little money.
Small-scale biogas systems offer farmers and ranchers opportunities
to save money on energy and reduce methane emissions. Over 250 farms in
the United States have made this investment, and the economics work for
many more.
One dairy farm in California has installed a system that uses manure
to create and capture gas to run a 700-kilowatt generator. The farm
saves $800,000 per year in electricity and propane expenses and will
earn back the money from its initial investment in just 4 years.
As you know, I am passionate about climate change, but you don't have
to care about climate change to be excited about distributed
generation. This is going to save people money, and that is the
exciting thing about it.
There are many factors that are adding to the dramatic growth of
distributed energy, including evolving State-level incentives and
interconnection standards. But the most important reason has been the
reduction in cost, especially when it comes to solar. It is simply
getting cheaper for a homeowner or a farmer to see real savings by
investing in clean energy.
A major reason for these cost reductions has been consistent,
predictable, Federal and State support. From about 2005 until recently,
Congress has done a fairly good job of providing consistent support for
clean energy and distributed generation. We provided long-term tax
credits that helped industries scale up and appropriated funds for the
DOE necessary to spur real innovation and bring down the costs.
But that consistent support has tapered off in recent years with the
expiration of a number of important credits. The clean energy industry
will suffer further when the business and homeowner tax credits for
renewable energy expire at the end of next year. That is why I plan to
introduce, in the coming weeks, a bill that would extend the homeowner
tax credit for solar, wind, and geothermal. This credit allows
Americans to take control of their own energy futures, and Congress
should extend it.
The explosion in DG does pose real challenges. Electric utilities
must adjust to a world where power flows in all directions, and the
lines between ratepayers and generators become blurred. This challenges
the traditional utility business model, and there is nowhere that is
facing this challenge more seriously than the State of Hawaii, where we
have a series of island grids and we have unprecedented penetration of
renewable energy into the grid. The old standard used to be a maximum
of 15 percent of intermittent energy onto the grid, but we have parts
of our grid that are in the 25 to 35 percent intermittent energy. So
there are real challenges in upgrading our grid system, upgrading our
electricity system, and creating a smart grid that can accommodate all
of this distributed generation.
But it also provides opportunities for innovation and the development
of new American markets. This is not in the distant future, this is
happening now. Each home, each business, each farm is now within reach
of controlling its own energy future, often with carbon-free clean
energy.
Distributed energy is a real solution to climate change, both in the
United States and around the world. It has created a revolution in
energy production that we must harness and accelerate for the challenge
of climate change, but it is a challenge we meet.
What excites me so much about distributed generation is that as much
as we were fighting about Keystone several months ago, as much as we
are likely to have a fight over the Congressional Review Act, having to
do with the President's Clean Power Plan, as much as I am, with Senator
Whitehouse's leadership, going to introduce a carbon fee, there are
lots of things where we are, frankly, not going to be able to find
agreement any time soon, there are spaces where we can work together.
Allowing individuals to generate their own electricity and reduce their
power bills seems to be a good place to start in terms of bipartisan
energy legislation.
I thank the Presiding Officer for the time to speak about this
exciting new possibility, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Remembering Elder L. Tom Perry
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Elder L. Tom Perry,
a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints. Elder Perry passed away on Saturday, May
30, 2015, at the age of 92.
L. Tom Perry was a giant of a man with an even larger soul. His
enthusiasm for life energized and inspired all who came under his
extraordinary influence. It has been said that ideas go booming through
the world like cannons, thoughts are mightier than armies, and
principles have achieved more victories than horsemen or chariots.
Inspiring ideas, transformational thoughts, and powerful principles--
these were the driving forces in Elder Perry's life and ministry and
what made him such a positive force for good throughout the world.
It is true Elder Perry's booming voice carried his words far and
wide, but it was his spiritual strength and positive perspective that
set his cherished ideas on faith, family, and freedom booming to the
four corners of the world and into the hearts of millions.
As a marine, as a businessman, and as an ecclesiastical leader, Elder
L. Tom Perry was committed to helping people elevate their thoughts and
lives. He was a man who knew what it meant to dream big, to be bold,
and to never accept anything less than your best. His passion for life,
people, and service was contagious. He was among the wave of marines to
arrive in Japan as World War II drew to a close. Though he entered as a
member of the occupation forces, his thoughts were focused on elevating
those around him. He convinced a number of his fellow servicemen to
spend their free time rebuilding a decimated Protestant chapel. Later,
while in Saipan, he similarly lifted others by repairing a Catholic
orphanage. Throughout his service as an LDS apostle, he was known for
praising positive performance. Yet he also made sure that thoughts and
sights were forever lifted up so individuals, families, and entire
communities would strive to do, be, and become better. Elder Perry
proved that thoughts are indeed mightier than armies.
L. Tom Perry was a man of principle and a man who recognized that
believing in, living by, and teaching true principles was the key to
success in every area of life. He taught that the family is the bulwark
of society and central to the strength and vitality of
[[Page S3665]]
communities and nations. He believed the principle of freedom was
universal and that all people should have the privilege to live in
liberty. He declared that freedom was not a spectator sport and that we
all have a sacred duty to defend and protect it. His faith carried him
through difficult days and trying times. The principle of faith helped
him help others. Elder Perry simply believed. He believed simply and
showed that positively and enthusiastically believing was simply a
better way to live. He believed in people, even--no, especially when
they didn't have the faith to believe in themselves. His life
demonstrated that true principles have achieved more victories than
horsemen or chariots.
Elder Perry often claimed he was just an ordinary man. Yet his ideas,
thoughts, and principles enabled him to live an extraordinary life. As
an apostle in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he
traveled the world sharing his profound testimony of Jesus Christ and
his love for people from every walk of life. Elder Perry reminded us
that we are to live our lives not by days but by deed, not by seasons
but by service.
I am thankful for the life and ministry of Elder L. Tom Perry. He
made a difference for his family, his community, his church, and our
Nation.
Mr. President, I would like to finish where I began: Ideas go booming
through the world like cannons, thoughts are mightier than armies, and
principles have achieved more victories than horsemen or chariots. The
booming legacy of Elder L. Tom Perry will echo in the hearts,
reverberate in the minds, and warm the souls of many for generations to
come.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold?
Mr. LEE. I will.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am going to seek recognition.
Mr. TILLIS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, we do have Senator Alexander scheduled
briefly. Could I have a moment before the Senator seeks recognition?
Mr. DURBIN. I will be seeking about 5 minutes, no more. So if Senator
Alexander comes to the floor, he will not have to wait long.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the ranking member of this important
committee, the Armed Services Committee, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode
Island, will be offering an amendment to the National Defense
Authorization Act, which I support. I hold the title of vice chairman
of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense and have served as
chairman of that subcommittee as well.
This is an awesome responsibility--to handle the authorization bill
for the greatest military in the world, and I salute both my friend
Senator Reed and my friend Senator McCain for the hard work they have
put into this bill, but there is a fatal flaw in this bill. Senator
Jack Reed addresses it, and I want to speak to it for a minute.
Senator McCain has stated publicly, with others on the Republican
side, a sentiment that is shared on the Democratic side. We have to do
away with sequestration once and for all. Sequestration is a bad idea.
It was supposed to be so bad that we would never see it. It was
supposed to be such an extreme, outrageous idea that it would never
happen, but it did--because when we fail to hit the budget numbers, we
automatically go into sequestration, which leads to across-the-board
cuts, mindless across-the-board cuts. Those cuts hurt every agency of
government when we did it, but most of all it hurt the Department of
Defense.
If there is one agency that needs to be thinking and planning ahead,
it is the Department of Defense, and sequestration, sadly, made cuts
making it impossible for the planners at the Department of Defense to
think ahead, to plan ahead.
So Senator McCain has said--Senator Reed has joined him and others
have been in the chorus, me included. Senator McCain has said: Once and
for all, we need to get rid of sequestration. We need to have a budget
process here that befits a great nation, and we don't.
Unfortunately, this authorization bill perpetuates some of the
fundamental flaws of sequestration instead of solving the problem.
I am cosponsoring the amendment of Senator Jack Reed. I believe we
have to eliminate the budget gimmicks that are cooked into this Defense
authorization bill. It doesn't do our servicemembers any service or our
country any good for us to perpetuate this.
For the entire Federal Government to still face ultimately the threat
of sequestration, across-the-board cuts--as vice chairman of the
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I have heard testimony from the
leadership of the Army, the Navy, Air Force, Marines, our Guard and
Reserve that sequester-level budgets really harm our national security,
and it makes sense.
How can you plan acquisition of important equipment? How can you be
sure you can train our courageous young men and women if there is so
much uncertainty with the budget? We know these cuts are going to have
a dramatic negative impact on training for our servicemembers, grounded
planes, wasted wrongheaded impacts to acquisition programs and more.
The National Defense Authorization Act includes the same budget
gimmick that was offered in the Republican budget resolutions. It
increases spending on something called overseas contingency operations
by the same amount as sequestration would cut from the budget of the
Department of Defense.
Let me explain. We fought two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and we
didn't pay for them. We added the cost of those wars to the national
debt.
So this President came in and said we have to put an end to that. So
we have to have actual appropriations, and we have to accept the
reality that we may face future wars. They created an account called
the overseas contingency operations account anticipating that wars
might come along. Well, thankfully we have brought our troops home from
Iraq and Afghanistan but for the limited commitment of troops to fight
ISIS in Iraq at this moment.
What we have seen in this budget is the attempt to take these
overseas contingency funds and take what was an emergency expenditure
and build it into this budget, which is the problem. It was the wrong
way to fix the problem earlier this year. It is the wrong way to try to
fix sequestration now. Cranking up OCO spending on a 1-year basis just
to get us through in the Department of Defense does nothing but add to
our deficit and create a bigger problem next year. What are we going to
do next year? No answer. That is why this is a gimmick. It is not
fixing the sequestration challenge.
What do the Department of Defense leaders say? Are they celebrating
because they are going to get this emergency money to come ride to the
rescue this year? No. Secretary Ash Carter testified last month to the
Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. He criticized this approach which
is part of the bill before us. He called it ``managerially unsound''
and ``unfairly dispiriting to our force.'' He then went on to say:
Our military personnel and their families deserve to know
their future, more than just [one budget] one year at a time.
. . . [O]ur defense industry partners--
Think about the contractors, for example, who are building the
planes, the tanks, and the ships of the future--
[O]ur defense industry partners, too, need stability and
longer-term plans, not end-of-year crises or short-term
fixes, if they're to be efficient and cutting edge as we need
them to be.
That is what the Secretary of Defense said.
Then General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, came in
uniform. What did he say about the budgetary approach we have before us
in this bill? He emphasized that it, too, created problems because of
the lack of predictability in defense budgets.
In testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Admiral Gortney
of Northern Command and General Kelly of Southern Command pointed out
that numerous domestic agencies also contribute to our national
security, and they noted the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI,
and other law enforcement agencies that are all subject to these
across-the-board cuts. So if we say that in the name of America's
national security defense and security, we are going to take care of
the
[[Page S3666]]
Department of Defense and then subject all these other agencies to
across-the-board cuts, we will diminish protection for America. These
agencies are important, too, not just the Army, Navy, Air Force,
Marines, Coast Guard, but also the FBI. For goodness' sake, they fight
terrorism every day. The Department of Homeland Security has the same
responsibility, the same type of mission. As we go through the list on
the so-called nondefense side, we find a lot of agencies that are
critically important to keeping America safe, and this approach in this
bill does nothing for them.
This gimmick will also come at the expense of other programs not
directed exclusively at homeland security and national defense.
So if the Department of Defense gets relief from sequestration by
using this overseas contingency operations maneuver, what are the odds
that we are going to do the same for the FBI, the Department of
Homeland Security, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Veterans'
Administration, the National Institutes of Health, or America's
infrastructure?
Let me say a word about that. The last time we did sequestration, I
am embarrassed to say that we did an across-the-board cut at the
National Institutes of Health. It was so damaging to NIH--which is the
premier medical research agency in the world--it was so damaging that
they are still trying to recover today. Before we went into
sequestration--consider this--if you had an application for a medical
grant at NIH, your chances before sequestration were one out of three.
One out of three. After sequestration and the cuts that took place--one
out of six.
There was recently a Fortune magazine which had a cover story about
the Alzheimer's crisis facing America. I have done a little work in
this area, and it is frightening to think about what we face. One
American is diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease every 67 seconds in our
Nation. I didn't believe that number and challenged my staff. They are
right. Once every 67 seconds.
Last year, we spent $200 billion in Medicare and Medicaid when it
came to the Alzheimer's patients across America. That didn't even touch
the amount of money families put into the care of their loved ones who
are suffering from this disease. The projection of the rate of growth
of Alzheimer's in America says that in just a few years, we will be
spending more than $1 trillion a year on that disease alone--the
government, over $1 trillion a year.
The Fortune magazine article--and the reason I rushed to buy it--says
that at least two major pharmaceutical companies are starting to
develop research that is promising to treat the onset of Alzheimer's,
the early stages, and perhaps to alleviation some of the suffering. We
have new imaging devices that are coming through that really can show
Alzheimer's in living human beings at the earliest stages when it can
be treated or at least ultimately should be treated--let me make
certain I say that correctly.
But if you look at these breakthroughs, as promising as they are, you
will find that in every single instance, the National Institutes of
Health was there before, doing the basic research leading to the new
drugs that are being developed, leading to the new technology. What
happens when you go through sequestration and cut the National
Institutes of Health? You stop the research. You slow it down, at
least, and in some areas actually stop it. Is that really in the best
interests of this country?
So when we come to the rescue of the Department of Defense, as we
should, and we say that the Budget Act--sequestration--has to come to
an end when it comes to the Department of Defense, we can't ignore what
sequestration's across-the-board cuts will do to so many other
critically important agencies, such as the National Institutes of
Health. Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the ranking member of the
Armed Services Committee, is going to offer an amendment to try to
address this honestly and directly, and I am going to support him.
Let's talk about infrastructure for a minute. Two weeks ago on the
floor of the Senate, we gave the 33rd short-term extension of the
Federal highway program, a short-term, 60-day extension. Let me ask, if
you are planning to build an interstate highway, is 60 days enough?
Hardly. Most of our Transportation bills have been long-term bills, 5-
and 6-year bills, as they should be.
There are some Members of the Senate who question whether there
should be a Federal program, but most of us believe there should be.
And if there is going to be one, we can't limp along every 60 days or 6
months in funding it. Keeping this Budget Control Act and sequestration
guarantees we are going to face this over and over again until Congress
faces its responsibility.
The unfortunate reality is, if Congress cannot tackle the issue of
sequestration honestly, directly, and head-on, our domestic agencies
will likely be stuck with these artificial caps for years. America will
pay a heavy price for our inability and unwillingness to tackle this
challenging issue.
The Senate should be providing real sequestration relief not only to
the Department of Defense but to all of the agencies of our government
that do such important work. That should be our focus--not a budget
gimmick using overseas contingency funds to get through 1 year with the
Department of Defense but something more befitting of a nation like
ours that deserves real leadership.
I urge my colleagues to support Ranking Member Jack Reed's critical
amendment so that we can begin to get serious about the challenges that
face us.
I yield the floor.
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following
leader remarks on Thursday, June 4, the Senate resume consideration of
H.R. 1735; that there then be 30 minutes equally divided in the usual
form on the following amendments; and that following the use or
yielding of time, the Senate vote in relation to the amendments in the
order listed: Portman No. 1522; Bennet No. 1540. I further ask that
there be no second-degree amendments in order to any of these
amendments prior to the votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators
Shaheen and Tillis or their designees be permitted to offer the next
first-degree amendments during today's session of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TILLIS. Senators should expect up to two votes tomorrow morning
at 10:15. There are several more amendments in the queue, and my
colleagues should expect votes throughout the day tomorrow to make
progress on the bill.
Amendment No. 1506 to Amendment No. 1463
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 1506.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Tillis] proposes an
amendment numbered 1506 to amendment No. 1463.
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide for the stationing of C-130 H aircraft avionics
previously modified by the Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) in
support of daily training and contingency requirements for Airborne and
Special Operations Forces)
At the end of subtitle B of title I, add the following:
SEC. 141. STATIONING OF C-130 H AIRCRAFT AVIONICS PREVIOUSLY
MODIFIED BY THE AVIONICS MODERNIZATION PROGRAM
(AMP) IN SUPPORT OF DAILY TRAINING AND
CONTINGENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRBORNE AND
SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES.
The Secretary of the Air Force shall station aircraft
previously modified by the C-130 Avionics Modernization
Program (AMP) to support United States Army Airborne and
United States Army Special Operations
[[Page S3667]]
Command daily training and contingency requirements in fiscal
year 2017, and such aircraft shall not be required to deploy
in the normal rotation of C-130 H units. The Secretary shall
provide such personnel as required to maintain and operate
the aircraft.
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1494 to Amendment No. 1463
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside and, on behalf of Senator Shaheen, call up
amendment No. 1494.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for Mrs. Shaheen,
proposes an amendment numbered 1494 to amendment No. 1463.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To revise the definition of spouse for purposes of veterans
benefits in recognition of new State definitions of spouse)
At the end of subtitle G of title X, add the following:
SEC. 1085. DEFINITION OF SPOUSE FOR PURPOSES OF VETERANS
BENEFITS TO REFLECT NEW STATE DEFINITIONS OF
SPOUSE.
(a) Spouse Defined.--Section 101 of title 38, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``of the opposite sex'';
and
(2) by striking paragraph (31) and inserting the following
new paragraph:
``(31)(A) An individual shall be considered a `spouse' if--
``(i) the marriage of the individual is valid in the State
in which the marriage was entered into; or
``(ii) in the case of a marriage entered into outside any
State--
``(I) the marriage of the individual is valid in the place
in which the marriage was entered into; and
``(II) the marriage could have been entered into in a
State.
``(B) In this paragraph, the term `State' has the meaning
given that term in paragraph (20), except that the term also
includes the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.''.
(b) Marriage Determination.--Section 103(c) of such title
is amended by striking ``according to'' and all that follows
through the period at the end and inserting ``in accordance
with section 101(31) of this title.''.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that in order to
maintain the practice of alternating between Republican and Democratic
amendments, that the Shaheen amendment be considered as having been
offered prior to the Tillis amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator
Murphy, Senator Markey, Senator Casey, Senator Murray, and Senator
Franken as cosponsors of the Reed amendment No. 1521 to H.R. 1735.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, if I may take this opportunity to urge all
of my colleagues to submit whatever amendments they may have to the
underlying legislation as quickly as possible. We have made some
progress today, and we want to continue to make progress in terms of
offering the amendments as well as setting up votes so we can continue
to move the legislation along. That would require that we get, as
quickly as possible, all of the possible amendments from both sides.
I particularly want to ask that my Democratic colleagues do so and
that they also be prepared if they wish to comment and speak on the
amendments if called upon to do so or at their convenience. I hope that
advice will be followed.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________