[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for the quorum call be rescinded.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.

                          ____________________