Congressional Record, Volume 161 Issue 89 (Thursday, June 4, 2015)

[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 89 (Thursday, June 4, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3734-S3759]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 1735, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 1735) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2016 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other
purposes.

Pending:

McCain amendment No. 1463, in the nature of a substitute.
McCain amendment No. 1456 (to amendment No. 1463), to
require additional information supporting long-range plans
for construction of naval vessels.
Reed amendment No. 1521 (to amendment No. 1463), 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.
Portman amendment No. 1522 (to amendment No. 1463), to
provide additional amounts for procurement and for research,
development, test, and evaluation for Stryker Lethality
Upgrades, and to provide an offset.
Reed (for Bennet) amendment No. 1540 (to amendment No.
1463), 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.
Cornyn amendment No. 1486 (to amendment No. 1463), 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.
Reed (for Shaheen) amendment No. 1494 (to amendment No.
1463), to revise the definition of spouse for purposes of
veterans benefits in recognition of new State definitions of
spouse.
Tillis amendment No. 1506 (to amendment No. 1463), 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.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 30
minutes equally divided in the usual form.
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that there will be
a vote at 10:15 a.m.; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 30 minutes of debate prior to
the vote.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I just listened to the words of the Senate minority
leader concerning his views on an authorization bill--not an
appropriations bill, not a funding bill but an authorization bill. I
would hope the minority leader and, frankly, my colleague and friend,
Senator Reid, would pay attention to what is going on in the world
today.
I refer to the Washington Post this morning and an article entitled
``Deadly fighting tests truce in Ukraine.''
As many of us predicted, Vladmir Putin will continue his aggression
and dismemberment of the European nation for the first time in 70
years.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article entitled
``Deadly fighting tests truce in Ukraine'' be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, June 4, 2015]

Deadly Fighting Tests Truce in Ukraine

(By Karoun Demirjian)

Moscow.--Continued skirmishes between pro-Russian rebels
and government forces in eastern Ukraine escalated Wednesday
into the first major battle in months, leaving at least 18
dead and further threatening a tenuous cease-fire agreement
signed in February.
Both sides traded accusations about who had started the
fighting in Marinka, a suburb of Donetsk on the government-
held side of the cease-fire line. Separatists reported 15
dead, and three Ukrainian soldiers were killed, according to
a Facebook post by Yuriy Biryukov, an adviser to Ukrainian
President Petro Poroshenko.
``They tried to move forward. The Ukrainian military are
repelling all attacks, and the situation is under control,''
Col. Andriy Lysenko, a spokesman for Ukraine's National
Security and Defense Council, said at a news conference
Wednesday in Kiev. ``Marinka and Krasnohorivka are under our
control.''
But the head of the separatists' militia said they were
only defending themselves against an assault by the pro-Kiev
forces.
``Trying to announce that we are storming Marinka--this is
a provocation by Kiev,'' said Vladimir Kononov, the militias'
top defense official. ``We already are in Marinka.''
Since February, top diplomats from the United States and
Europe have participated in several rounds of shuttle
diplomacy aimed at settling the conflict and persuading the
rebels and the government to fully implement the peace
agreement signed in Minsk, Belarus.
Last month, U.S. Secretary of State John F. Kerry and
Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland made back-to-
back trips to Russia, urging that country's leaders to use
their influence over the separatists in eastern Ukraine to
push them to parley with Kiev. Groups from both sides were
supposed to conclude an opening round of talks in Ukraine
this week to address various points of contention.
Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk accused Russia
on Wednesday of intentionally undermining the peace process
and ordering pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine ``to start a
military operation.''
The surge in violence also comes as Western nations are
gearing up for this weekend's Group of Seven summit in
Germany--an assembly of nations from which Russia was ousted
when it annexed Crimea last year.
That annexation happened after the upper house of the
Russian parliament met in an emergency session to give
President Vladimir Putin the authority to send troops abroad.
On Wednesday, the speaker of the upper house told lawmakers
that there may be cause to hold a similar emergency session
soon but did not give a specific reason for the warning.

Mr. McCAIN. Perhaps the minority leader and others have missed this
article: ``Syria likely used chlorine gas in recent bombing raids,
rights group says.''

A prominent human rights group accused the Syrian
government Wednesday of using toxic chemicals during a recent
surge in attacks involving barrel bombs on rebel-held areas
in northern Syria.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, June 4, 2015]

Syria Likely Used Chlorine Gas in Recent Bombing Raids, Rights Group
Says

(By Hugh Naylor)

Beirut.--A prominent human rights group accused the Syrian
government Wednesday of using toxic chemicals during a recent

[[Page S3735]]

surge in attacks involving barrel bombs on rebel-held areas
in northern Syria.
Human Rights Watch said chlorine gas was probably used in
at least three bombing raids that targeted Idlib province in
April and last month, after the area fell to a powerful new
rebel coalition. That coalition and other insurgent groups
have recently inflicted heavy losses on the regime of
President Bashar al-Assad in the north and east of Syria.
Assad's government has been accused by Western countries of
using chemical weapons over the course of the four-year
conflict, including an attack involving sarin gas in 2013
that killed hundreds of people in a suburb of the capital.
Regime opponents and activists allege that Assad's forces
have punished residents in rebel-controlled areas with
barrages of the crude bombs, which are built from oil barrels
or gas cylinders and can be filled with toxic chemicals such
as chlorine gas. Barrel bombs have been dropped by regime
helicopters and airplanes on residential areas, hospitals and
markets, killing thousands of civilians, according to human
rights groups.
Another group said two barrel bombings on Wednesday killed
at least 24 people, including children, in Idlib and rebel-
held areas of Aleppo province. The British-based Syrian
Observatory for Human Rights said that it expected the death
toll to climb from those attacks.
In its Wednesday report, Human Right Watch said evidence
indicates that three attacks in April and May on towns in
Idlib involved barrel bombs containing toxic chemicals. The
group was unable to confirm the exact toxin used in the
attacks, which it said killed two people and affected 127.
But it cited chlorine as the likely culprit based on
interviews with first responders and doctors, as well as an
examination of photographs and videos.
The total number of attacks involving chlorine gas during
that time is probably much higher, according to the report,
which was released to coincide with the U.N. Security
Council's regular monthly meeting on chemical weapons in
Syria. Citing evidence provided by doctors in Idlib, the
group said 24 suspected chlorine gas attacks were carried out
between May 16 and May 19, killing at least nine people and
affecting over 500.
``While Security Council members deliberate over next steps
at a snail's pace, toxic chemicals are raining down on
civilians in Syria,'' Philippe Bolopion, Human Rights Watch's
U.N. and crisis advocacy director, said in a statement.
He said the Security Council should impose sanctions for
the attacks.
In 2013, the Syrian government agreed to a deal brokered by
the United States and Russia to eliminate its chemical
weapons arsenal, forestalling potential U.S. airstrikes. The
Syrian government, which denies using chemical weapons,
agreed to join the Organization for the Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons (OPCW) as part of the agreement.
Last month, reports emerged that OPCW inspectors found
traces of sarin and VX nerve agent at a military research
site in Syria, raising suspicion that the government had not
eliminated its chemical weapons stockpiles.

Mr. McCAIN. On the front page of the New York Times this morning:
``ISIS Making Political Gains, Group Stakes Claim As Protector of
Sunnis.''

Ideologically unified, the Islamic State is emerging as a
social and political movement in many Sunni areas, filling a
void in the absence of solid national identity and security.
At the same time, it responds brutally to any other Sunni
group, militant or civilian, that poses a challenge to its
supremacy.
That dual strategy, purporting to represent Sunni interests
and attacking any group that vies to play the same role, has
allowed it to grow in the face of withering airstrikes.

In the news yesterday:

ISIS has closed off a dam to the north of Ramadi, cutting
water supplies to pro-government towns downstream and making
it easier for its fighters to attack government forces. ISIS
militants are opening only two or three of the dam's 26 gates
on the Euphrates River, denying water to numerous cities and
using water as a critical weapon to gain more influence and
territory.

``Iraq: ISIS fighters close Ramadi dam gates, cut off water to
loyalist towns,'' that was on CNN.
``President Hassan Rouhani stated on Tuesday that,'' according to
Reuters, `` `The Iranian nation and government will remain at the side
of the Syrian nation and government until the end of the road.' He also
pledged to send reinforcements in backing Bashar al-Assad.''
``U.S.: Shiite Fighters in Iraq Are a Necessary, if Unlikely, Ally''

Retired Marine Gen. John Allen, said the militias have an
important role to play in liberating Anbar, so long as they
``take command from the central authority.''

``Embedding U.S. forces can help inject energy into leadership
development of new and weaker Iraqi commanders. . . . ''
AFP Beirut: ``Iraq, Iran fighters deployed to defend Damascus.''

Thousands of Iranian and Iraqi forces have been deployed in
Syria in past weeks to bolster the defences of Damascus and
its surroundings, a Syrian security force told AFP on
Wednesday.
Iran's official news agency IRNA quoted elite Revolutionary
Guards General Qassem Soleimani as saying ``in the coming
days the world will be surprised by what we are preparing, in
cooperation with Syrian military leaders.''

I point out to my colleagues, Qassem Soleimani is the guy who sent
the copper-tipped IEDs into Iraq that killed hundreds of marines and
soldiers and also was seen prominently in Baghdad and other parts of
Iraq leading the Shiite militias.
Some of that is complicated. Some of it is impossible to make up.
Finally, the New York Times article on June 2: ``Assad's Forces May
Be Aiding New ISIS Surge.''

Building on recent gains in Iraq and Syria, Islamic State
militants are marching across northern Syria toward Aleppo,
Syria's largest city, helped along, their opponents say, by
the forces of President Bashar al-Assad.

Finally, ``Exclusive: Syrian Rebels Backing Out of U.S. Fight Vs.
ISIS.''
Syrian rebels are backing out because they are not being protected by
the United States of America and being barrel-bombed.
So I will not even go into the crisis in the Far East, where China is
now militarizing islands in international waters.
So here we are arguing about the way the authorization for America's
defense is funded, and the minority leader just announced they would
take a stand because they don't like the way it is funded. I don't like
the way it is funded. But don't those who are in opposition to this
have some sense of reality as to what is going on in the world; that if
we don't authorize the ability to defend this Nation and its national
security interests--which in the words of Henry Kissinger before the
Armed Services Committee, ``The world has not seen more crises since
the end of World War II.''
I say, with respect to my good friend Senator Reid, haven't you got
your priorities skewed? Don't you understand this is an authorization
bill? Don't you understand that if you want to fight, fight it on
appropriations? Don't you understand--I am sure you do--that this is
about the welfare and benefit of the men and women who are serving?
I am as opposed to sequestration as anybody. I have watched the
hearings on the Senate Armed Services Committee, where the military
leaders have said sequestration is putting the lives of the men and
women serving in uniform in greater danger. That should be enough
alone, but we are playing the hand we are dealt. That fight should not
take place on an authorization bill.
This authorizes reforms of the Pentagon. This authorizes reforms of
the retirement system, which is long overdue. It authorizes our ability
to acquire the weapons and training which are necessary to defend this
Nation. It doesn't fund them. It doesn't fund them; it authorizes them.
After intense hearings, months and months of hearings, debate, work
in the Senate Armed Services Committee, we have come up with a product
that I am extremely proud of.
I understand my friend from Rhode Island will be proposing an
amendment later on to nullify the funding of OCO, which would then, by
the way, have the effect of reducing the funding and authorization
rather dramatically and cancel many vitally needed programs, equipment,
and training for the men and women who are serving in the military.
That is fine, but that will be defeated.
Once it is defeated, I hope and pray we will then move forward with
the amendment process, which has been absent for the last 2 years--
totally absent for the last 2 years--and not--for the first time in 53
years--not pass a Defense authorization bill through the Congress of
the United States. For 53 years, through Democratic and Republican
majorities, through liberal and conservative, we have authorized. We
have authorized because our highest responsibility is the security of
this Nation.
I urge all of my colleagues, if we want to have this fight, have it
on the appropriations bill, the money bill. This is authorization. For
you to distort it in some way and to equate it with a funding
mechanism, in my view, is intellectual sophistry.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.

[[Page S3736]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona is correct, every
uniformed Chief of service came before us and said the greatest crisis
facing the military process was sequestration, the Budget Control Act,
and they asked us to change it, and we didn't change it.
If we are going to change it, then we have to make every effort and
take every step to make those changes, and that is the point I have
tried to raise in this committee--not by eliminating the funds
available to the military but by making these funds subject to
responsible action with following the request of the defense officials
to eliminate sequestration. I think we should do it as soon as
possible. If we don't take every opportunity to make that case and
every action possible to make that case, then we will be essentially
rejecting the advice of our senior military leaders.
Suggesting that this bill is somehow so totally disconnected to the
appropriations process is belied by the title of the bill. This is an
act to authorize appropriations for the fiscal year 2016 for the
military activities for the Department of Defense, for military
construction, the defense activities in the Department of Energy. We
are directly linked to the appropriations process. In the ideal world,
the one that we authorize and would like to see, nothing can be
appropriated, no dime can be spent, unless we have authorized it.
What we have done, effectively, in the bill--and I think it is not
because it is the chairman's first choice but because it was the only
available option given the budget resolution--is that we have taken the
overseas contingency account, bolstered it up dramatically, and set a
new sort of pathway, which next year, unless we resolve this issue of
the Budget Control Act, we will come back again with more money--and
the following year.
Also, as has been pointed out, we will have situations where we will
find some very strange things happening in our OCO account, because we
can't fund legitimate concerns of the government in other areas because
of caps. That is essentially what happened in the eighties. That is why
we have a significant amount of medical research money in the
Department of Defense--not because the Department of Defense does it
but because that was the only available option in the eighties and
nineties to get money to where we thought we would need it.
I think the other issue here, too, is very implicit in our activity,
which is that this bill is aimed at the Department of Defense and the
military activities of the Department of Energy. Our national security
is much more than that. The chairman read quite accurately reports
about activity in the world, but up my way, in Roslindale, MA, there
was an alleged terrorist who was confronted by an FBI agent and a
Massachusetts police officer. That is the kind of terrorism a lot of
people are concerned about, and if we sequester and cut off funding for
the Department of Justice and the FBI and the Customs Service, et
cetera, we will see this threat growing. So this is about a broader
view, a wider view, and the overall mass security of the United States.
I know we have some votes pending, and I would like to go ahead and
allow for my colleague to speak.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional
minutes--the vote was scheduled at a quarter after--an additional 5
minutes in order to allow 3 minutes for the Senator from Colorado and 3
minutes for the other Senator from Colorado.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. BENNET. I thank the Senator from Arizona for that additional time
and for his commitment and the ranking member's commitment to our
national security. I deeply appreciate it.

Amendment No. 1540

Mr. President, I would like to talk briefly about amendment 1540,
which the Senate will consider shortly. I am here with my colleague
Senator Gardner from Colorado. We are here on this bipartisan amendment
to require the Government Accounting Office to audit the way the
Veterans' Administration constructs major medical facilities and help
identify exactly where the money went on some of these projects.
The Veterans' Administration is building several major medical
facilities across the country, including one in Aurora, CO.
The project in Colorado has been grossly mismanaged leading to
excessive cost overruns. Other projects across the country have had
similar problems for years. For years, our delegation and practically
anyone who has been involved with the Aurora project--almost anybody
who has driven by the Aurora project has pushed the VA to acknowledge
that there is actually a problem and to come up with a plan to fix it.
Unfortunately, the VA has so far failed to do this, and veterans across
the Rocky Mountain region have continued to wait for this new medical
center.
We should ensure and must ensure that the mistakes on the Aurora
project never happen again, but we all concluded that with greater
accountability and transparency the right thing to do is to move
forward and complete this critical facility.
As many of us have experienced up here, imposing accountability and
transparency on an enormous Federal bureaucracy is elusive and
complicated. The GAO has the necessary expertise to identify realistic,
hard reforms and to make them stick.
We have to hold the VA accountable to our taxpayers so we can move
forward to give the Rocky Mountain region's veterans the care they
need. The VA and Congress are going to have to work together to get
this project back on track. Finding the money to do this will be
painful. It will be difficult, which is why we need to ensure that we
account for every dollar that has been spent. But failing to complete
this hospital is not an option. It would be a broken promise. Having a
half-finished hospital in Colorado would be a national disgrace, and on
behalf of our veterans, we cannot allow it to happen. It would be a
disservice--worse than a disservice--a broken promise of the worst kind
to the hundreds of thousands of veterans across the Rocky Mountain
region and throughout the United States.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I wish to express my
gratitude to my colleague from Colorado, Senator Gardner, for joining
me on this important amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I, too, echo the thanks to my colleague
from Colorado, Senator Bennet, for his leadership on this effort. It is
time that we take the VA hospital from the thorn of the VA system to
the crown of the VA system, which we know it will be once it is
completed. But in the meantime, there is a tremendous amount of work we
have to do. I would like to thank the chairman of the Armed Services
Committee for allowing this time today on the floor.
I would note that there are four Members of this body who have
actually visited the facility in Denver in recent months. The Presiding
Officer has witnessed this hole in the ground right now that has
already spent hundreds of millions of dollars, projected to be $1.73
billion at this point.
We have talked about the need to complete it and have committed to
that need to finish this project, along with the chairman of the
Veterans' Committee, who has joined us on the floor today, Senator
Isakson, who is here today with us, who is in support of this amendment
to bring more accountability to the VA system so that we can understand
what went wrong when they were building not only the Aurora facility
but what went wrong around the country as project after project has
seen cost overruns and delays.
Veterans gathered this past week in Colorado to rally to finish the
darn thing. We have a Veterans' Administration that time and time again
has failed to take into account the necessary measures and policies to
fix it and to prevent it from ever happening again. With this
amendment, we can start to find out where they went wrong and to hold
them accountable. When the only person who has been fired is the person
who said we were going to have a problem, there is something wrong with
that.
I commend Senator Bennet for his leadership on fixing this problem,

[[Page S3737]]

building the hospital, and giving our veterans what they were promised.
I thank the Presiding Officer for his time today. I thank the
chairman of the committee for enduring this conversation this morning.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Floor Privileges

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have a list of staff members of the
Committee on Armed Services and I ask unanimous consent that those
staffers on the list be granted the privilege of the floor at all times
during the Senate's consideration of and votes relating to H.R. 1735,
the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2016.
The list is as follows:

Barker, Adam; --Barney, Steven; --Bennett, Jody; -Borawski,
June; --Brewer, Leah; ---Brose, Christian; --Chuhta, Carolyn;
--Clark, Jon; ---Clark, Samantha; --Davis, Lauren; --Donovan,
Matt; --Edelman, Kathryn; --Edwards, Allen; --Epstein,
Jonathan; --Everett, Elizabeth; --Goel, Anish; ---Goffus,
Tom; ---Greene, Creighton; --Greenwalt, Bill; --Guzelsu,
Ozge; --Hayes, Jeremy; --Hickey, James; --Howard, Gary; ---
Kerber, Jackie; -- King, Elizabeth; --Kuiken, Mike.
Leeling, Gary; Lehman, John; Lerner, Daniel; Lilly, Greg;
McConnell, Kirk; McNamara, Maggie; Monahan, Bill; Nicolas,
Natalie; Noblet, Mike; Patout, Brad; Potter, Jason; Quirk,
John; Salmon, Diem; Sawyer, Brendan; Sayers, Eric;
Scheunemann, Leah; Seraphin, Arun; Soofer, Rob; Sterling,
Cord; Waisanen, Robert; Walker, Barry; Walker, Dustin;
Wheelbarger, Katie; White, Jennifer.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Rhode Island.

Amendment No. 1522

Mr. REED. Mr. President, the amendment pending before us now is the
Portman amendment proposed by the Senator from Ohio. We spoke about it
yesterday.
First, let me recognize that he is trying to assist the Army in
modernizing the Stryker, which is a very critical piece of equipment.
But I want to reiterate some of the concerns I have about the
amendment. I know Senator Portman will be here shortly to make a final
comment on the amendment. The amendment would add $371 million of
funding for procurement, research, and development of the lethality
upgrade to the Stryker program.
I do not have to tell anyone around here that we are in a very tough
budget situation. We have to look very closely at every request. The
traditional way it is done is that there will be in the President's
budget the request by the service department, including the Department
of Army, and then the Army will submit an unfunded requirements list--
those priority elements that have not made the cut, if you will, in the
President's budget. That was done in March. I understand that this
whole requirement for the Stryker lethality upgrade came in in April.
There is an issue of unfortunate timing. But, nevertheless, because we
did not have the opportunity to look at this as part of the overall
unfunded requirements list--nor the Army, for that matter--we really do
not have a sense of the priority. Is this the most important program
that we can invest $371 million in at this moment for the benefit of
the Army? Therefore, I am very concerned that we are sort of moving
forward without full and careful analysis both by the Department of the
Army and by the committee, and we need, at this particular moment, this
difficult time, to have that type of analysis.
The other issue here, too, is that this is the first step in a
multiyear process. We are not quite sure how much additional funding
will be needed over the next several years. It is clear from the Army
that additional funding will be needed.
So we are at this time, without the usual review by the Army and by
the committee, committing ourselves, perhaps, to significant funding
going forward. The present estimate is that it will cost $3.8 million
per vehicle. The plan is to upgrade about 81 vehicles. But it is
something that, again, could be more expensive and will commit us over
several years.
The funding--the vast majority of it--is going to be dedicated to one
plant in a single State. Indeed, I think, generally and appropriately,
it is a concern of the Senator from Ohio because most of the work will
be done in Ohio. I think, again, he should be commended for being
interested in what is happening in his home State.
So I appreciate the demand, but I just do not think this has gone
through the process sufficiently enough for us to make that type of
commitment today on the floor, and I will be opposing it right now.
I would also point out two other factors. First, the Army has the
capability going forward, if this program becomes so critical and they
raise it to the highest priority, to request a reprograming of funds,
to move money from one less significant priority to this program. That
is an option they have, and that is an option they may well choose to
use, but it will only be after their careful consideration of the other
priorities that are facing the Army. I think that is a better way to do
it.
The other factor I would point out is that the pay-for for this
program is the foreign currency account. Basically, that is a hedge
within the Department of Defense for their international transactions
and the value of the U.S. dollar versus other currency. Well, the
dollar is strong, and so there appears to be additional excess funds in
that account, but currency over the next year could change
dramatically. We have already put significant pressure on this supposed
excess funding. We have reduced by about $550 million the request that
the Department of Defense has made for this hedge fund, if you will,
against currency changes in the world going forward in their
acquisition process. I know the House has used more. But I think we
have been careful not to try to put too much weight on this account.
So for all of these reasons, I would urge my colleagues to oppose the
amendment. Later, there will be an opportunity for the Department of
the Army to reprogram funds if it is necessary.
I think this should have been done in the context of a careful review
of all their priorities so we know exactly where it stands. Again, I
think we are putting too much pressure on this currency account. It
might turn out to evaporate these supposed savings.
I yield the floor since I see the Senator from Ohio has arrived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, yesterday I talked about an amendment
that is absolutely crucial that we include in this legislation. Again,
I commend the chairman, Senator McCain, and the ranking member, Senator
Reed, for their work on this underlying bill. But there is something
missing, and it is very clear to everybody who is looking at this issue
objectively, particularly what is going on right now on the eastern
border of Ukraine. We do not have the ability in Europe, because we
have pulled our armored units out, to say with credibility that we have
the capacity to address the very real challenge now, unfortunately,
that is emerging in Europe.
Last night, as some of you know, Russian and separatist forces
launched an offensive again. I am told it is the largest attack since
the February Minsk agreement. So this is just what so many people
predicted, including President Poroshenko and others in Ukraine, which
is that things are heating up again on the eastern border of Ukraine.
The NATO forces--the United States of American in particular--need to
be sure they have in Europe the ability to at least have some
credibility to say they can respond to this.
We have moved our armored units out, meaning there are not Abrams
tanks there, except for a few units that were up in the Baltics on a
temporary basis this spring. I visited them a couple of months ago.
They are doing a terrific job, but they are leaving.
What the Army has said is, we want to allow our troops who are there
to be able to up-armor, particularly with a weapon--a 30-millimeter
cannon rather than a .50-caliber machine gun--on our Stryker vehicles
to be able to have some credibility there, to be able to say that we
have armored units in Europe that can respond to these new challenges.
The Army has asked for this. The Army wants this. They are pleading for
it because the soldiers who are there know they will not be able to
perform their mission without this enhanced capability.
We had this debate yesterday on the floor. I do not think Senator
Reed and other Democrats necessarily disagree with the substance of
this amendment. What they have said is they are concerned about the
pay-for. Well, let's talk about the pay-for. The pay-for is

[[Page S3738]]

taking this out of an account that is already being used for other
purposes. It is already being used by the House Armed Services
Committee. In fact, the House Armed Services Committee has already
taken more funds out of this account than all of the funds in the SASC
committee, the Senate committee, plus this amount that I believe ought
to be taken out of this account. This is called the foreign currency
fluctuation account at the Department of Defense.
GAO, which is the body that looks at these issues from our
perspective, from a legislative branch perspective--they are the
auditors--GAO has estimated that the Pentagon will have $1.86 billion
in surplus from these fluctuations by the end of fiscal year 2016.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PORTMAN. So GAO has looked at this. They have said there will be
$1.86 billion in surplus in these fluctuation accounts at the end of
fiscal year 2016. They have actually updated their figures now with
even more recent data, and they have just adjusted the 2016 surplus
even higher to $2.02 billion. No one has produced a currency projection
to counter this GAO estimate. So we are talking about over $2 billion
in this account that is available.
By the way, the money we are talking about here is not going to be
taken and used for other readiness priorities because the SASC bill has
already swept up that money for readiness. This money will be sitting
in a reserve fund. The Pentagon does not need to be sitting on this
size of a reserve fund--essentially a slush fund--when we do have these
needs that have been identified. The Army has made a formal request for
these. They have asked for assistance here. These deployed units need
this assistance. They said they need it. We ought to put this to good
use--namely, for an urgent requirement like this one.
Again, if you look at the House bill versus the Senate bill, the
House has used more of this funding in this reserve fund, this slush
fund, than we have used even when you include this additional
requirement I am talking about today.
So this notion that somehow we cannot do this because the offset is
not good--it just does not make any sense. It does not fit with what
GAO has said, and it does not fit with what the House has done. So I do
not know what the objection is, but I tell you what--if you vote
against this, then you are saying that our troops in Europe ought not
to have the capability that they have asked for, that they need.
Admittedly, this came late. I am sorry about that. It should have
come with it sooner. This was a requirement they had identified, but
they had identified needing it later by 2020. Now, they need it now,
and they need it now because the situation has changed in Europe.

We have to be flexible to be able to respond to that change. If we
wait another 12 months, another year to do this, who knows what is
going to happen. But I know one thing, having been in Eastern Europe
recently, I know those countries of Eastern Europe and, in fact, those
countries on the European Continent--our NATO partners, in particular,
but also Ukraine--are looking to the United States of America to show
that the commitment we have made on paper, to ensure we have that
commitment in terms of our capability on the ground in Europe.
Again, this is an issue where I think we should come together as
Democrats and Republicans. It is a bipartisan amendment. I commend
Senator Peters for identifying this need with the Army.
I understand Senator Reed's concern that this came late in the
process, but it is here. The request has been made. I would sure hope
we would be able to come together today, given what is happening right
now on the eastern border of Ukraine, to ensure that we send a strong
message that, at a minimum, we are going to meet these requirements
that the Army has insisted they need to be able to give our troops what
they need to be able to keep the peace in this important part of the
world.
I thank the Presiding Officer for the time. I urge my colleagues to
support the amendment.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, again, I recognize the way that the Senator
from Ohio is articulating a need of the military. The question is how
high the priority is.
Just one point I wish to make is that we do understand acutely the
crisis in the Crimea, et cetera. The availability of this equipment
would not be instantaneous. It would take many months to do the
upgrade, to do the evaluations, et cetera.
Again, I think the best approach would be to allow the Department of
the Army to make a judgment, to reprogram, if necessary, and to get
this moving.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs
on agreeing to amendment No. 1522, offered by the Senator from Ohio,
Mr. Portman.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Nevada (Mr.
Heller), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer)
and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 34, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 202 Leg.]

YEAS--61

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Bennet
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Casey
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Grassley
Hatch
Heinrich
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
King
Kirk
Lankford
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Murray
Paul
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Stabenow
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker

NAYS--34

Baldwin
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cardin
Carper
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heitkamp
Kaine
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Nelson
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Tester
Udall
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--5

Boxer
Graham
Heller
Rubio
Warner
The amendment (No. 1522) was agreed to.

Vote on Amendment No. 1540

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now
occurs on amendment No. 1540, offered by the Senator from Rhode Island,
Mr. Reed, for Mr. Bennet.
If there is no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the
amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.

Amendment No. 1473 to Amendment No. 1463

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment in order to call up amendment No. 1473.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter] proposes an
amendment numbered 1473 to amendment No. 1463.

Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.

[[Page S3739]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To limit the retirement of Army combat units)

On page 38, line 12, insert after ``fighter aircraft'' the
following: ``and army combat units''.
On page 43, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
(e) Minimum Number of Army Brigade Combat Teams.--Section
3062 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following new subsection:
``(e)(1) Effective October 1, 2015, the Secretary of the
Army shall maintain a total number of brigade combat teams
for the regular and reserve components of the Army of not
fewer than 32 brigade combat teams.
``(2) In this subsection, the term ` brigade combat team'
means any unit that consists of--
``(A) an arms branch maneuver brigade;
``(B) its assigned support units; and
``(C) its assigned fire teams''.
(f) Limitation on Elimination of Army Brigade Combat
Teams.--
(1) Limitation.--The Secretary of the Army may not proceed
with any decision to reduce the number of brigade combat
teams for the regular Army to fewer than 32 brigade combat
teams.
(2) Additional limitation on retirement.--The Secretary may
not eliminate any brigade combat team from the brigade combat
teams of the regular Army as of the date of the enactment of
this Act until the later of the following:
(A) The date that is 30 days after the date on which the
Secretary submits the report required under paragraph (3).
(B) The date that is 30 days after the date on which the
Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees
that--
(i) the elimination of Army brigade combat teams will not
increase the operational risk of meeting the National Defense
Strategy; and
(ii) the reduction of such combat teams does not reduce the
total number of brigade combat teams of the Army to fewer
than 32 brigade combat teams.
(3) Report on elimination of brigade combat teams.--The
Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense
committees a report setting forth the following:
(A) The rationale for any proposed reduction of the total
strength of the Army, including the National Guard and
Reserves, below the strength provided in subsection (e) of
section 3062 of title 10, United States Code (as amended by
subsection (e) of this section), and an operational analysis
of the total strength of the Army that demonstrates
performance of the designated mission at an equal or greater
level of effectiveness as the personnel of the Army so
reduced.
(B) An assessment of the implications for the Army, the
Army National Guard of the United States, and the Army
Reserve of the force mix ratio of Army troop strengths and
combat units after such reduction.
(C) Such other matters relating to the reduction of the
total strength of the Army as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
(g) Additional Reports.--
(1) In general.--At least 90 days before the date on which
the total strength of the Army, including the National Guard
and Reserves, is reduced below the strength provided in
subsection (e) of section 3062 of title 10, United States
Code (as amended by subsection (e) of this section), the
Secretary of the Army, in consultation with (where
applicable) the Director of the Army National Guard or Chief
of the Army Reserve, shall submit to the congressional
defense committees a report on the reduction.
(2) Elements.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1)
shall include the following:
(A) A list of each major combat unit of the Army that will
remain after the reduction, organized by division and
enumerated down to the brigade combat team-level or its
equivalent, including for each such brigade combat team--
(i) the mission it is assigned to; and
(ii) the assigned unit and military installation where it
is based.
(B) A list of each brigade combat team proposed for
disestablishment, including for each such unit--
(i) the mission it is assigned to; and
(ii) the assigned unit and military installation where it
is based.
(C) A list of each unit affected by a proposed
disestablishment listed under subparagraph (B) and a
description of how such unit is affected.
(D) For each military installation and unit listed under
subparagraph (B)(ii), a description of changes, if any, to
the designed operational capability (DOC) statement of the
unit as a result of a proposed disestablishment.
(E) A description of any anticipated changes in manpower
authorizations as a result of a proposed disestablishment
listed under subparagraph (B).

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I will return to the floor soon to lay
out more fully what this amendment does. Fundamentally, it tries to
protect our force structure, our personnel and, in particular, the core
component of brigade combat teams as the Pentagon--the Defense
Department--deals with curtailed resources.
I am very concerned, as are so many of us, that as defense budgets
are cut, personnel and core resources in terms of end strength,
including brigade combat teams, will suffer cuts that go well beyond
fat and into meat and bone. We need to limit that. We need to avoid
that. This amendment would do that with regard to brigade combat teams.
It does not increase spending. It retains as much flexibility as
possible for the Department of Defense. I think it meets an important
goal in a balanced and reasonable way. I look forward to continuing
this discussion toward a vote in favor of this amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, for the benefit of Members, and in
agreement with Senator Reed, we will be having the Shaheen amendment,
followed by side-by-side Markey and Cornyn amendments. And those votes,
we are planning on, but haven't confirmed, will probably be at around
1:45 p.m., and that would complete our activities. That is not totally
agreed to, but that is the plan.
Mr. REED. Madam President, also I believe we anticipate taking up by
voice vote the Tillis amendment.
Mr. McCAIN. We will voice vote the Tillis amendment, and we will be
looking, hopefully, at a manager's package, as well.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.

Amendment No. 1494

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I rise to discuss amendment No. 1494,
which I believe would move our Nation one step closer toward finally
securing equal protection under the law for veterans in the United
States. I thank the other cosponsors of this amendment, Senators Leahy,
Durbin, Brown, Hirono, Blumenthal, Baldwin, Schatz, Peters, Gillibrand,
Markey, Whitehouse, Coons, Wyden, Franken, Murphy, Murray, and Boxer.
This amendment would end the current prohibition on benefits for gay
and lesbian veterans and their families who live in States that do not
recognize same-sex marriage. My amendment is based on the Charlie
Morgan Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act, which I was proud to
reintroduce earlier this year.
The bill is named for Charlie Morgan, a former soldier and chief
warrant officer in the New Hampshire National Guard and the Kentucky
National Guard. Charlie was a military veteran with a career spanning
more than 30 years. I first met Charlie in 2011. She was on her way
home from deployment in Kuwait, and she had just been diagnosed for a
second time with breast cancer. Concerned for her wife Karen and their
young daughter's well-being, Charlie became an outspoken critic of the
Defense of Marriage Act, which at the time prohibited her spouse and
child from receiving the benefits that she had earned during her
service.
Sadly, Charlie did not live to see the Supreme Court overturn the
Defense of Marriage Act in 2013. However, because of her example, her
leadership, and her courageous advocacy, our Nation took another
historic step toward ensuring equal treatment and civil rights for all.
Despite the Supreme Court's overturning the Defense of Marriage Act,
there are still provisions remaining in the U.S. Code that deny equal
treatment to LGBT families. One of those provisions is in title 38,
which deals with veterans benefits.
Today, if you are a gay veteran living in a State such as New
Hampshire that recognizes same-sex marriage, your family is entitled to
all the benefits you have earned through your military service.
However, a veteran with the exact same status, the same service record,
the same injuries, the same family obligations, but living in a State
that does not recognize same-sex marriage will receive less.
The impact of this discrimination is very real. Monthly benefits are
less, spouses and children are not eligible for medical care at the VA,
and families are not eligible for the same death benefits.
There are even reports that the VA has required gay veterans to pay
back benefits because their State will not recognize their marriage. In
one case, a young woman--a 50-percent disabled combat veteran--was
initially approved for benefits for her wife and child but later told
by the VA that because of where she lived and whom she

[[Page S3740]]

loved, she was not only going to lose a portion of her benefits but the
VA was also going to withhold her future payments until she paid the VA
back. This is just disgraceful--to cut the benefits earned by a combat
veteran and then also require that she pay back the VA, all because of
whom she married and where she lives. Perhaps the most frustrating part
of this story is knowing that if this woman moved across the border to
another State, she would have no problems with the VA.
My amendment would fix this issue for these men and women who have
volunteered to serve in our Armed Forces. They have volunteered to put
themselves in harm's way, to leave their families and their homes, and
to travel around the world to protect America and our way of life. Yet
they are being deprived of the very rights they have risked their lives
to protect.
So again, let's be clear what we are talking about. The Supreme Court
has ruled it is unconstitutional to deny Federal benefits to legally
married, same-sex couples and their children. Yet, due to unrelated
provisions of the Federal Code, State legislatures have the ability to
indirectly deny Federal benefits to certain disabled veterans and their
families solely because they are in a same-sex marriage. It is unjust
and, according to the Supreme Court, it is unconstitutional.
Now, my amendment is not new to the Senate. Last Congress the
Veterans' Affairs Committee approved it by a voice vote, and earlier
this year, 57 Senators voted in favor of a budget resolution amendment
on this issue. Now, when we vote--hopefully very soon on this
amendment--Senators will have the opportunity to end an unjust and
unconstitutional provision of law that discriminates against veterans.
Many of us talk about the need to honor the service of our veterans
and to make sure they have access to the care they deserve, and we
should all do that. But if you believe that all veterans, regardless of
their sexual orientation, deserve equal access to the benefits they
have risked their lives for, regardless of where they live, then you
will vote in favor of this amendment.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support passage of this amendment
when it comes up for a vote.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to commend the Senator from New
Hampshire. I think one of the best indications of the appropriate
direction of this policy is that the Department of Defense extends
benefits regardless of State law to all military personnel. Consistent
with the Department of Defense, this should be done by the Department
of Veterans Affairs.
So I commend the Senator. I think it is the right thing to do and the
consistent thing to do and the logical thing to do.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I thank Senator Reed, the ranking
member of the Armed Services Committee, who has a distinguished
military career of his own, for his support of this effort and his
understanding of how important this is to so many veterans who have
served.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

Amendment No. 1645 to Amendment No. 1463

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment and call up the following amendment: Markey No. 1645.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] proposes an
amendment numbered 1645 to amendment No. 1463.

Mr. MARKEY. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress that exports of crude oil to
United States allies and partners should not be determined to be
consistent with the national interest if those exports would increase
energy prices in the United States for American consumers or businesses
or increase the reliance of the United States on imported oil)

At the end of subtitle G of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1085. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING EXPORTS OF CRUDE OIL.

It is the sense of Congress that exports of crude oil to
allies and partners of the United States should not be
determined to be consistent with the national interest and
the purposes of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42
U.S.C. 6201 et seq.) if those exports would increase energy
prices in the United States for American consumers or
businesses or increase the reliance of the United States on
imported oil.

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, what we are about to do is have a
discussion about whether the United States of America should start
exporting our oil--exporting our oil.
The United States right now, along with China, is the largest
importer of oil in the world. We are not exactly at but very near to
the level of imports of oil in our country that we were back in 1975
when we put a ban on the exportation of oil in our country.
Why is that important? It is important for a lot of reasons. No. 1,
if we begin to export our oil in the United States, a new Barclays
report found that the U.S. consumer last year saved $11.4 billion at
the pump because of the lowest U.S. crude prices in a long time, and we
would potentially save upwards of $10 billion in prices for consumers
at the pump in the United States of America.
We understand the oil industry. Here is what happens. The world price
is set. It is called the Brent price. The Brent price is the world
price of oil. That price is traditionally higher, much higher than the
price of crude oil in the United States that is produced in the United
States. That is West Texas intermediate. That is a price set in
Cushing, OK.
If you are an oil company, you want to get our U.S. crude out on the
world market because they will then be able to sell it for a much
higher price. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with that is that
the American consumers will not get that oil at the lower price, and we
will still have to import oil into our country because we are still
short by millions of barrels of oil per day.
The consumer in America is the one who will be paying this tax on
their price at the pump. That is the essence of what this whole
strategy is about. It is to get the oil companies the highest price for
the oil which is on the world market. But who is going to pay? Who is
going to have their pockets tipped upside down at the pump and have
money shaken out of them so they have to pay a higher price? It will be
the consumers.
If we want to give more money to the defense budget, let's just do
it. Let's have a big debate about increasing the defense budget. Let's
have that debate. But let's not have the American consumer at the pump
be a special tax that is imposed in order to help our allies overseas.
Ultimately, of course, there is a beautiful access there where the oil
industry is saying: Yes, sir, we are willing to put our crude oil on
ships and send it overseas.
It is just a bad, bad economic policy for our country. We are already
paying a high price at home. This exportation of our oil would also
defy what our own Department of Energy is saying. Our Department of
Energy is saying that in 2020, our oil production in America is going
to peak, and then we are going to begin to go down once again in our
oil production.
Who is saying this? Our Government. Who is saying this? The Energy
Information Administration of the United States of America. What we are
engaging in here is a premature attempt to export oil with the
likelihood that by 2019 and 2020 our oil production is going to start
to go down again.
It also hurts our domestic oil refining industry. The Energy
Information Administration has found that lifting this ban on the
exportation of our own domestic crude could lead to a fundamental
reduction in the amount of investment made by the American refining
industry here on our own soil. Some $9 billion less would be invested
because the oil would be sent overseas. The crude oil would get refined
overseas. It would not be refined here in our own country with American
workers and American companies doing it here on our own soil, helping
our economy here.
This decision, by the way, that Members are going to be asked to make

[[Page S3741]]

today is opposed by the AFL-CIO, it is opposed by the steel workers, it
is opposed by the League of Conservation Voters, by the Sierra Club, by
Public Citizen, and by an entire group of American refiners.
This is no radical coalition that has been put together. It is a
broad base of interest in our own country that wants to make America
stronger. How in the world can we be strong if we are exporting oil
while we are still importing oil? We will have to import the same
amount that we are now exporting under this amendment that is being
made by the Senator from Texas, and we will wind up with, ultimately,
the price being paid by the American consumer at the pump.
From my perspective, this is about as desperate an attempt as the oil
industry can have to get out from underneath the 1975 law. They have
been looking for an opportunity. But, obviously, the instability in the
Middle East should make us very cautious at this time. The oil fields
of Saudi Arabia are now very vulnerable. They are right on the border.
The Houthis being supported by Iran, right at the bottom of the Red
Sea, makes that juncture very vulnerable to a cutoff of oil coming into
the world economy. This Shiite-Sunni war is something that we have to
be very conscious of because ISIS is targeting those areas in Syria, in
Iraq, and in Yemen that have oil resources.
We need a big debate in our country about oil and war in the Middle
East. We are at a pivotal point here where the Ottoman Empire and all
of the lines that were drawn 100 years ago are being erased and with
that the protection of oil resources in the Middle East.
We should not just have a debate on the Senate floor about cavalierly
lifting the ban on the exportation of oil. We should have a debate
about what this war in country after country and oil area after oil
area means for our country.
I would say to you that we should err in a way that is going to
protect our own economy. That is what makes us strong. That is what
makes it possible for us to project the power around the world. It is
that we are the strongest economy in the world, and the indispensable
life's blood of economic growth is low-energy cost for every single
industry and every single consumer. It puts more money in their
pockets.
This decision that the amendment of the Senator from Texas asks us to
make will send us in the wrong direction. This is a disaster for
consumers in our country. It is a disaster for the refiners in our
country, and it is a disaster for the national security of our country.
We should keep our resources here at home for American families,
American businesses, to enhance our national security using America and
our economy as the basis for how we project power around the world. For
every barrel of oil that we export, we are going to have to import
another barrel of oil from some other place.
We should have the debate here on the Senate floor about where that
oil will be coming back into our country because we still need 3
million, 4 million extra barrels of oil a day. That is a national
security consideration that we have to deal with. Which country are we
going to call up? Which country are we going to ask to send us their
oil? What are the implications for our national security of having
phone calls go to country after country--probably not just the oil
companies but our government beginning new negotiations to get even
more oil to come here as we export the oil that we should be keeping
here.
The Saudis have been our friends, historically. We have no guarantee
that the Saudis are going to even be running that country. Let's be
honest about it. Let's talk about that. Let's debate it. ISIS has taken
over oil fields in Syria. ISIS has taken over areas of oil production
in Iraq. Let's have a debate about that. That is what we should be
debating. How is that oil now funding ISIS? How is that oil now being
used by Iran, potentially, in Yemen and in other parts of the world to
undermine American interests?
In one part of the world, Yemen, we want to back the Sunnis against
the Shiites. In Iran, we are backing moderate Sunnis against Shiites.
In Iraq we are backing the Shiites against radical Sunnis, trying to
get moderate Sunnis to help us. All of it, by the way, is with oil as--
if not the central issue, then one of--the central issues in each one
of these countries. To have a resolution here today and to be saying
that we should be exporting oil--no, ladies and gentlemen, that is not
how we should be discussing this issue.
How did we get into the Middle East? We got into the Middle East,
yes, protecting Israel, but we got in because of our addiction to oil--
not my words, President Bush's words. We have to break our dependence
upon imported oil. Increasing fuel economy standards is a big part of
it. Having this fracking revolution continue to produce more oil here
domestically is a big part of it. Investing in renewables and energy
efficiency is a big part of it. But we are still at the earliest stages
of this strategy. When we have completed it, when we know we are
successful, then let's talk about the generosity that we are going to
expect from American consumers at the pump to pay higher prices for
gasoline.
Again, this is an issue that the American people overwhelmingly want
to see resolved in a way that keeps American oil in America. If we are
going to continue to export young men and women from America over to
the Middle East, then we should not be exporting our oil at the same
time. That makes no sense--no sense. It is disrespectful to the
sacrifice young men and women are making in the Middle East in order to
protect our interests to start an economic policy of exporting imported
oil while we still need to import it.
This issue, to me, is central to our overall long-term national
security and economic interests, and I urge an aye vote on the
amendment.
I ask for a rollcall on the amendment, Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
At the moment there is not a sufficient second.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam 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. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

ObamaCare

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, this morning, Majority Leader
McConnell spoke about the skyrocketing costs, the broken promises, and
the repeated failures of the President's health care law. He pointed
out specifically how so many Americans are facing double-digit premium
increases because of ObamaCare. In his home State of Kentucky, some
people face proposed increases as high as 25 percent. He noted that
some people in Indiana could be hit with a 46-percent jump in their
premiums.
So how did Democratic Leader Reid respond to the news of double-digit
premium increases? He said people are extremely satisfied with health
care. He said the people Majority Leader McConnell spoke about are
having increases that are ``very, very minimal.'' I wish to repeat
that. The Democratic leader, on the floor of the Senate today, called
premium increases of 25 and 46 percent very, very minimal. What world
is he living in? How on Earth can Senate Democrats believe Americans
are satisfied with their health care when they are facing double-digit
premium increases? How on Earth can the Senate Democratic leader
believe these increases are very, very minimal? They are shocking.
The Democrats have their head in the sand about the health care law.
We can pick up Investor's Business Daily, Monday, June 1: ``ObamaCare
Deductibles Soaring to $6,500 for Silver-Level Plan.''
Pick up the Wall Street Journal, Friday, May 22: ``Health Insurers
Seek Big Increases.''
Investor's Business Daily today: ``ObamaCare Enrollment Mystery: 2
Million Young Adults Missing.'' They are not signing up, and there are
plenty of good reasons why. It is not because it is a good deal for
them.
No matter how bad it gets, no matter how unaffordable it is,
President Obama and the Democrats in Congress absolutely refuse to face
the reality. They refuse to help Americans who continue to be hurt by
this law.

[[Page S3742]]

I wish to speak a little bit about the reality of the law and why
Republicans are committed to helping all Americans finally have access
to affordable care.
We all remember when President Obama promised that his health care
law would cause insurance premiums to go down--down--by an average of
$2,500 per year, per family. So where do we stand now? A couple of
weeks ago was the deadline for insurance companies to say what they
intended to charge people for health care next year. This is the first
time companies have been able to set their prices based on a full year
of information about how much ObamaCare actually costs. From what we
have seen so far, the cost is enormous. A lot of Americans are going to
be shocked by how much more their health insurance will be.
These higher premiums are just the latest evidence that ObamaCare is
an expensive failure. We have seen reports about the largest insurance
company in New Mexico saying it wants to raise rates by almost 52
percent next year. The biggest insurer in Tennessee wants to raise its
rates 36 percent. In Maryland, the largest insurer is planning to
increase premiums by more than 30 percent. Yet, we hear Senator Reid on
the floor of the Senate this morning saying these things don't matter.
People who are in the President's home State of Illinois right now
are facing an average premium increase of 30 percent. It seems as
though there is another headline every day about how expensive health
care insurance is becoming.
The Wall Street Journal Tuesday: ``Insurers Seek Big Premium
Increases.''
I know there are some supporters of the law who like to say lots of
people have insurance under ObamaCare. How many of them are actually
going to be paying these double-digit rate increases next year because
of ObamaCare? That is what Americans want to know.
On Monday, the Obama administration released information on rate
hikes for people living in about 41 States. It turns out that 676
different insurance plans--different ObamaCare insurance plans--offered
for sale in these 41 States plan to raise their rates by double
digits--by at least double digits. The average increase is 21 percent.
About 6 million people getting their insurance from these plans will
face double-digit rate increases next year. Do Democrats who voted for
ObamaCare think a 21-percent rate increase is affordable? Do they think
a double-digit premium increase will help these 6 million hard-working
Americans?
These numbers are so large, it is hard to even understand what they
mean for a typical person. What does it mean that health insurance
policies in Maryland might have an average rate increase of 30 percent?
How does that impact someone's life, their quality of life?
Let's say there is a 40-year-old nonsmoker living in Annapolis, MD.
He buys a silver plan from CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield, which is the
biggest insurer in Maryland and the most popular kind of plan.
According to the Wall Street Journal study, those rates would go from
about $2,900 for the year to nearly $3,700 next year. That is an $800-
a-year increase. The President promised it would go down $2,500, and
now it has gone up $800. That is how expensive ObamaCare has become. It
is far more costly than people thought it was going to be, than the
insurers thought it was going to cost, and far more costly than the
American people were told it was going to be.
I have heard some Democrats who support this law say these are just
the requested rates. They say we shouldn't worry because State
insurance agencies won't allow these huge rate increases to take
effect. Well, CareFirst, the company in Maryland that wants a 30-
percent rate increase next year, raised its rates 16 percent last year.
Hard-working people across the country are going to have to pay these
enormous premiums because the President mandates they buy it. And many
of them still won't be able to actually use their insurance because the
deductibles and the copays are so high. This year, the average
deductible for an ObamaCare silver plan is almost $3,000 per person and
more than $6,000 per family.
One has to ask, why are costs going up so much so fast? That is what
a radio station in Kansas City, MO, KCUR-FM, asked. They reported last
week, on May 27, that premiums for some plans in Kansas are going to go
up 38 percent. According to the radio station, the increases ``appear
to be driven by requirements in the Affordable Care Act, also known as
Obamacare.'' That is what they report.

The Kansas State Insurance Department said it was because of things
like all of the coverage mandates in the law. Families are now paying
for coverage that is more than they need, more than they want, and more
than they can afford. A spokesman for the State insurance agency in the
State of Kansas told the radio station, ``These things cost money.''
What do people think about these enormous increases in their
premiums? Are people happy because of all the extra money they have to
pay because of Obamacare?
Let's look at Connecticut. In Connecticut, they have been writing to
the State insurance department, and they are angry and frustrated about
the Obamacare price hikes.
One person wrote, ``I find it outrageous that the rates for 2016 are
going to increase by 6.7 percent,'' which was the request in
Connecticut. The person goes on:

Where do you think that I am going to get that money? I do
not get a raise every year based on your ``every year'' rate
increases.

So this is somebody who is having a hard time with a rate increase of
only 6.7 percent. Imagine how tough it is going to be for families all
around the country who will have to pay 20 or 30 or 40 percent more
next year for their Obamacare-mandated insurance. Thousands of families
across the country are facing these shocking rate increases, and it
might be just the beginning.
Sometime this month, the Supreme Court is expected to decide an
important case called King v. Burwell. This case is about the subsidies
some people get to pay Obamacare's alarmingly high costs. The health
care law said that Washington could subsidize the premiums of people
who buy insurance through its exchanges established by the States.
President Obama knew that wouldn't be enough because he knew his law
was going to make insurance premiums skyrocket, so he told his
administration to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize insurance in the
Federal exchange as well. Democrats in Congress wrote the law to allow
subsidies for one group, and then the President then decided to pay
them out for another group. So if the Supreme Court decides that the
President overstepped his authority, there are going to be a lot of
people who could be facing paying the full cost of their Obamacare
plans without the subsidy. They are going to see just how expensive
this Obamacare insurance is and just how destructive the Democrats'
health care law has been.
Let's face it. In spite of what the minority leader says on the floor
of the Senate, Obamacare has been a disaster. It is bad for patients.
It is bad for providers. It has been terrible for the American
taxpayers, hard-working Americans who work every day to try to put food
on the table and pay their taxes.
Republicans are offering better solutions, real solutions that will
end these outrageous and expensive Obamacare side effects. That means
giving Americans freedom, choice, and control over their health care
decisions. Republicans understand that hard-working American families
can't afford Obamacare any longer.
Democrats need to admit that their health care law has been and
continues to be an expensive failure. If they are ready to do that,
then Republicans will work with them to help give people the care they
need from a doctor they choose at lower cost.
Thank you, Madam President.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I rise today to speak on my
amendment No. 1578, the Military Justice Improvement Act, to ensure
that survivors of military sexual assault have access to an unbiased
and professionalized military justice system.
Last year, despite earning the support of 55 Senators--a coalition
spanning the entire ideological spectrum,

[[Page S3743]]

including both the majority and minority leader--our bill to create an
independent military justice system, free of the inherent bias and
conflicts of interest within the chain of command, fell short of
overcoming the 60-vote filibuster threshold. But, as we said then, we
will not walk away. We will continue to fight to strengthen our
military because that is our duty.
It is our oversight role in Congress to act as if the brave survivors
are our sons and daughters, our spouses who are being betrayed by the
greatest military on Earth. We owe them at least that.
Over the last few years, Congress has forced the military to make
many incremental changes to address this crisis. After two decades of
complete failure and lipservice to ``zero tolerance,'' the military now
says essentially: Trust us. We have got this.
They spin the data, hoping nobody will dig below the top line because
when you do, the clear conclusion is that survivors still have little
faith in the system and that the military has not actually made a dent
in the problem. Even after much-lauded reforms, the estimate for 2014
is 20,000 cases of sexual assault and unwanted sexual contact--the same
level as 2010--an average of 52 a day. A much-touted reform made
retaliation a crime. That made a lot of sense, but a sky-high 62-
percent retaliation rate remains unchanged from 2 years ago.
The system remains plagued with distrust and does not provide the
fair and just process the survivors deserve. Simply put, the military
has not held up to the standards posed by General Dempsey 1 year ago
when he said, ``We are on the clock if you will . . . the President
said to us in December, you've got about a year to review this thing .
. . and if we haven't been able to demonstrate we are making a
difference, you know, then we deserve to be held to the scrutiny and
standard.''
So I am urging my colleagues to hold the military to that standard.
Enough is enough with the spin, the excuses, and the promises, because
throughout the last year, we have continued to see new evidence of how
much further we actually have to go to solve this problem.
We have a very simple choice. We can keep waiting, hoping that the
reforms we put in place--that we actually forced the military to put in
place--will somehow restore trust in the system, while an average of 52
new lives are shattered every day, three-quarters of whom will never
come forward because they see what happens around them and they don't
trust the system and don't see how justice is possible because
commanders hold all the cards, or we can do the right thing and act.
We can accept a system where, according to the DOD themselves, three
out of four servicewomen and nearly half of servicemen say sexual
harassment is common or very common or we can do the right thing and
act.
We can accept a system where women who were sexually harassed were
1,400 percent more likely to be sexually assaulted that same year or we
can act.
We can accept a climate where supervisors and unit leaders were
responsible for sexual harassment and gender discrimination in nearly
60 percent of all cases or we can act.
My friends, I believe it is time that we provide our servicemembers
with an unbiased justice system, one that is professionalized, where
the decisionmaker is trained in military justice. It is time to finally
listen to the survivors who have told us over and over again that this
reform is required to instill long-lost confidence in the system.
It is very much time to do the right thing and act because every time
we look at this problem, it seems to get worse. My office just reviewed
107 sexual assault case files from the largest base in each of the
services. We requested these files, and that was for 1 year of sexual
assaults. We requested the data to understand what actually happens
once the reports are filed, how they are investigated, and how they
move forward within the military justice system to see if there is any
other challenges we have to address. It took the Pentagon a year to
respond to my document request. These 107 files are just a snapshot of
the thousands of estimated cases that occur annually.
What we found, which was unexpected, was an alarming rate of assaults
among two survivor groups who are not represented in the DOD survey.
The DOD survey is all servicemembers. But what we found is that
civilian women and military spouses are not counted in that survey, and
of these 107 cases, in 53 percent of them, the survivor was either a
military spouse or a civilian. These two categories of survivors are
hidden in the shadows.
According to the DOD themselves, the real scope of this problem,
unfortunately, is much larger than the 20,000 that were estimated for
last year alone. These obviously aren't just numbers; these are real
lives being broken, and they deserve a fair shot at justice.
It should disturb everyone in this Chamber that instead of hope for
justice at these four military bases, nearly half of the survivors who
initially filed a complaint--some of them going through the medical
exam, going through testimony, going through evidence--nearly half who
filed withdrew their complaint during the process before trial. What
does that tell us? Is there a form of retaliation taking place? Is it
just a lack of faith in the system? To have about half of these cases
not move forward is very troubling.
Even when a case did move forward, just over 20 percent of them went
to trial, and only 10 percent of these cases resulted in sexual assault
convictions with penalties of confinement and dishonorable discharge.
Ten percent. Only 10 percent ended in conviction. The cases that did
proceed to trial but failed to obtain a sexual assault conviction
typically resulted in a more lenient penalty, such as reduction in rank
or docked pay.
There was a new report published by the Human Rights Watch. They
issued a report which told us that servicemembers who reported a sexual
assault were 12 times more likely to suffer retaliation than to see
their offender get convicted of the sexual offense. Let me repeat that.
A survivor who reports a sexual assault is 12 times more likely to see
retaliation than to see justice. How can anyone say this is a system
our survivors can actually have faith in?
Despite the DOD's reported 62 percent retaliation rate--and this is
so troubling--there was not evidence of a single serious disciplinary
action against anyone for retaliation. Not one. There was not one
disciplinary action for 62 percent of survivors who were retaliated
against. That borders on the impossible. But the reality is, without
independent review, we are actually relying on commanders to charge
themselves with retaliation. It doesn't make any sense.
According to the DOD's own SAPRO report, retaliation remains at 62
percent for women. Over one-third experienced administrative action,
and 40 percent faced other forms of professional retaliation. That
means your job changes in some meaningful way.
DOD admits they have made zero progress since 2012.
The carefully crafted and widely bipartisan Military Justice
Improvement Act is designed to reduce the systemic failure that
survivors of military sexual assault describe, in deciding whether to
report the crimes committed against them, due to the bias and inherent
conflicts of interest posed by the military chain of command's current
sole decisionmaking power over whether a case moves forward. This
reform actually protects both the victim and the accused. We do not
want to see an innocent person convicted any more than we want to see a
guilty person go free.
Due process, professionalism, training, equal opportunity to justice
is how we restore a broken system. It is time to move the sole
decisionmaking power over whether serious crimes akin to a felony go to
trial from the chain of command into the hands of nonbiased,
professionally trained military prosecutors, where it belongs. And we
do this while leaving military crime in the chain of command. So we
completely carve-out anything that is military-related, such as missing
in action or not honoring a command. In fact, the decision whether to
prosecute the vast majority of crimes, including 37 serious crimes
uniquely military in nature, plus all punishable crimes that have less
than a year of confinement as a penalty, remain in the chain of
command.
The brave men and women we sent to war to keep us safe deserve
nothing

[[Page S3744]]

less than a justice system that is actually equal to their sacrifice.
We owe that at least to them.
Thank you, Madam 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. KAINE. Madam 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. 1521

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise in support of the NDAA that is on
the floor now but also in strong support of an amendment that has been
offered by Senator Reed of Rhode Island to the NDAA. Actually, I have a
deja vu feeling in the speech, because the speech is largely about what
I gave as my maiden speech in February of 2013; that is, the BCA budget
caps and sequester.
To begin, before I focus on the amendment from my colleague from
Rhode Island, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, I do
think there is a lot of good policy in the NDAA. We worked on it
together. That committee process is a productive one. I think we always
find a great degree of bipartisanship as we are trying to tackle the
programmatic description of our Nation's military budget and support.
There is much good policy, acquisition reform, and other key reforms
that are part of this budget. There are some items that I feel very
strongly about dealing with shipbuilding and ship repair.
I think it is great that we are having the debate on the floor. We
have had NDAAs passed, but we have not had a lot of floor time on them
in 2013 and 2014. So the fact that we have are having this debate about
the critical nature of our Nation's defense and the authorizing bill on
the floor is very positive.
There are some aspects of the NDAA that I do not like. There are some
items that I wish were in there but that are not. That is part of the
process. I think we could all say that, but I am glad we are having the
debate on the floor. However, the item that is in the NDAA that I have
the greatest concern about is the use of what I consider a flagrant
budget gimmick to sneak by defense spending caps that were imposed by
the 2011 Budget Control Act.
I think the gimmick is a serious one and a challenging one. The
gimmick is dishonest. It is bad for the Nation's defense. It is also
bad for America's nondefense priorities.
The good news is that the budget can be fixed. My colleague from
Rhode Island, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, has a
proposal to fix it. The proposal was offered in committee and rejected,
and it has been offered again on the floor. I want to describe it and
explain why I strongly support it.
First, there is the gimmick itself. Just for the public on this, in
August of 2011, before either I or the Presiding officer were in the
body, Congress passed the Budget Control Act that imposed a set of
draconian budget caps on defense and nondefense spending as a
punishment, in case Congress did not find a grand budget deal. So the
wisdom of this body at the time was that we will sort of punish
ourselves unless we can find a budget deal. I describe that
colloquially as if we don't do something smart, we will do something
stupid.
Well, Congress did not do something smart. There wasn't the grand
budget deal that many hoped there would be. So on March 1, 2013, budget
caps went into effect that put a significant crimp in both the defense
and nondefense items in the Nation's budget. The first speech I gave on
the floor was in February 2013. After my first State recess week, I
traveled around and I heard my constituents talk about how bad these
caps would be, especially for the Nation's defense. I stood up and just
shared what my constituents had described to me. But, nevertheless, the
caps went into effect and we agreed, through the early 2020s, to limit
in a very significant and tough way both defense and nondefense
spending.
So what is the gimmick that is in this NDAA that is on the floor
today?
A decision was made that the world has changed since August 2011.
ISIL has grown up and is gobbling up acres and square miles of
territory. We are battling against Ebola, as we were earlier in the
year. North Korea is cyber-attacking major American corporations.
Vladimir Putin has moved into Ukraine and is threatening other nations.
There are a lot of challenges. So it was the wisdom first of the
President, in submitting the fiscal year 2016 budget, and then of the
Armed Services Committee that living under the sequester defense caps
was a bad idea. It would be a bad idea for the Nation. But instead of
just saying: OK, the caps are a bad idea; let's adjust the cap--which
we can do with 60 votes in this body and the concurrence of the House--
a decision was made: Let's not adjust the cap, let's end-run the cap.
So we want to exceed the cap. We want to exceed it by $38 billion in
fiscal year 2016. But rather than adjust the cap, let's do this: Let's
just take $38 billion that the Nation needs to be safe, and we will put
it in what is called the OCO account, Overseas Contingency Operations.
It is something that is not subject to the cap. It is supposed to be
used for core warfighting activity. But the $38 billion does not
represent core warfighting.
We spent $2 billion in the last year, for example, in the war on
ISIL. We are not going to spend $38 billion in the next year. No,
instead, we are going to fund all kinds of nonemergency,
noncontingency, nonwarfighting expenditures that would require an
adjustment of the cap, and we are just going to put them into the OCO
account, kind of a slush fund. By doing that, we end-run the law of
Congress, the Budget Control Act.
I asserted, and I strongly believe, that this is dishonest, it is bad
for defense, and it is bad for the nondefense accounts. It is
dishonest. It is dishonest because, if we need this money for defense,
we should fix the budget control caps. That is what we should do. We
should not call expenditures for daily operations that are not core
warfighting part of the OCO account. That violates the way the OCO
account has been treated.
Once we go down that path, we are going to see everything going into
the OCO account, and we will really end-run. So we are not being honest
with ourselves, but especially, since we all know what the game is, we
are not being honest with the public.
Second, putting this money, the $38 billion, in the OCO account is
bad for defense. Defense needs the ability to plan. If we put the money
in the OCO account, is it going to be here next year? Is it not going
to be here? There is sort of a wink and a nod that it will probably be
here. We ought to be acknowledging that these funds are needed in the
base defense budget so that our DOD personnel can plan that it will be
there in the future, because that is probably our intent. It is bad for
defense to put this in this OCO account.
Third, it is bad for the nondefense accounts. If we are going to say
that the BCA caps are bad, we should adjust them. Instead of using an
end run, let's adjust them. Let's adjust them not just for the defense
accounts but also for the nondefense accounts, because, as the
Presiding Officer and my colleagues here know, the nondefense accounts
are critical to the Nation's defense.
The FBI is nondefense. It is critical to the Nation's defense.
Homeland Security is critical to the Nation's defense. In the
Department of Energy, much of the research we do is for the reactors on
nuclear carriers and nuclear subs. Those get cut by budget cups. They
are critical to defense. We ought to be lifting the caps on the
nondefense accounts, as well.
So the gimmick that is used is a gimmick. It is dishonest. It hurts
defense. It hurts nondefense accounts that are important to the Nation.
Good news--there is a solution. We are doing this because we do not
like the budget caps. That is why we are doing this. That is why we are
using the OCO gimmick. If we don't like the budget caps, we should fix
them. We should find the 2015 version of the Murray-Ryan budget deal
that was reached in December of 2013, where we agreed to adjust the
budget caps. That deal accepted part of sequester. It absorbed
sequester cuts. But it also found targeted ways to provide relief, both
to defense and nondefense accounts. That is what we should be doing. We
should be showing the same leadership that was shown in 2013.

[[Page S3745]]

I rise to say that the amendment that my colleague from Rhode Island,
our ranking member, proposes does exactly that. It does exactly that.
It takes the $38 billion that is in our budget, which I believe should
be spent on defense, and it says that this money should be spent on
defense, but it should be spent the right way, as part of a base
budget, not as part of OCO.
It puts a fence around those dollars and says that the money is
there, and it is there for defense because the Nation needs it. But the
fence will keep the money from being utilized until we fix the BCA caps
on both the defense and nondefense accounts.
If we do fix the BCA caps, that money will be available. Because of
language included by the chair of the committee in the markup, fixing
the budget caps would move the money from the OCO account into the
defense base budget where it should be. I think we all know what the
right answer is here, which is for this $38 billion to be used to
protect the Nation but to be part of the base budget, not the OCO
account. To get there we need to fix the BCA caps across the board for
defense and nondefense. The Reed amendment would accomplish that. That
is the reason that I am on the floor today, to praise the debate on the
NDAA but to say this is the right way to keep our Nation safe.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 1:45
p.m. today, the Senate vote in relation to the following amendments:
Shaheen No. 1494, spouse definition; Tillis No. 1506, C-130 aircraft;
further, that there be no second-degree amendments in order to any of
those amendments prior to the votes, and that the Shaheen amendment be
subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold for adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Paul of Kentucky, I
ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment in order to
call up amendment No. 1543.
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. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise with my friend from Arizona,
Senator Flake, to speak about an amendment that he and I and Senator
Blumenthal from Connecticut have as part of this pending legislation.
Along with sports fans across America, I was appalled to learn last
month that many of the ceremonies honoring members of our armed
services at NFL games are not actually being conducted out of a sense
of patriotism but for profit in the form of millions of dollars in
taxpayers' money going from the Department of Defense to wealthy NFL
franchises.
In fact, NFL teams have received nearly $7 million in taxpayer
dollars over the last 3 years from contracts with the Army National
Guard, which include public tributes to American soldiers, sailors,
airmen, and marines. Our amendment would put an end to this shameful
practice and ask the NFL to return those profits to charities
supporting our troops, veterans, and their families.
All Americans can agree that sports unite us, especially football.
For generations, football has brought together people from every walk
of life--from the first organized American football game between
Rutgers and Princeton in 1869 to Super Bowl XLIX played in the great
State of Arizona this February, which attracted more than 100 million
television viewers, the most watched TV program in history.
Football has been a uniting force for our Nation. Every weekend, from
peewee to high school, college, and the NFL, for good seasons and bad,
in common cause and bitter rivalry, millions of passionate fans have
bonded together. For many Americans, football is deeply patriotic and
woven into the very fabric of our country's unique history and
heritage. For several weeks every fall, this patriotic spirit grows
when the NFL takes time to honor the service and sacrifice of the brave
young Americans serving in the U.S. Armed Forces.
Teams wear special camouflage uniforms, hold special game-day
programming under the theme ``Salute to Service.'' We have all been
heartened by these patriotic displays, from the giant oversized flags
and color guard pregame performances to half time tributes to our
hometown heroes. Every fan, whether united by team or divided by
rivalry, comes together to thank those who have served and sacrificed
on our Nation's behalf.
That is why I and so many other Americans were shocked and
disappointed to learn that several NFL teams were not sponsoring these
activities out of the goodness of their own hearts but were doing so to
make an extra buck, taking money from American taxpayers in exchange
for honoring American troops. That means many of the color guard
performances and troop recognition ceremonies were actually funded with
American tax dollars and pocketed by wealthy NFL teams.
For example, the Army National Guard spent $675,000 under contracts
with the New England Patriots--hardly a deprived franchise--that
included a program called ``True Patriot,'' in which the team honored
Guard soldiers at half-time shows during home games.
Other contracts funded color guard performances, flag ceremonies, and
appearance fees to players for honoring local high school coaches and
visiting students.
According to the information my office has received from the Army
National Guard, the NFL received nearly $7 million in taxpayer dollars
over the last 3 years from Guard contracts for activities including:
pregame color guard ceremonies, pregame reenlistment ceremonies,
pregame onfield American flag rollouts, ingame flag runners, half-time
soldier recognition ceremonies, Guard-sponsored high school Player of
the Week and Coach of the Week awards, and Guard-sponsored player
appearances at local high schools.
The following teams had contracts in the past 3 years, according to
the Army National Guard: Atlanta Falcons, $579,500; Baltimore Ravens,
$350,000; Buffalo Bills, $550,000; Chicago Bears, $443,000; Cincinnati
Bengals, $117,000; Dallas Cowboys, $262,500; Denver Broncos, $460,000;
Detroit Lions, $193,000; Green Bay Packers, $300,000; Indianapolis
Colts, $400,000; Miami Dolphins, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and Jacksonville
Jaguars, $160,000; Minnesota Vikings, $410,000; New Orleans Saints,
$307,000; New York Jets, $212,500; Oakland Raiders, $275,000;
Pittsburgh Steelers, $217,000; St. Louis Rams and Kansas City Chiefs,
$60,000; San Diego Chargers, $453,500; San Francisco 49ers, $125,000;
and Seattle Seahawks, $393,500.
What makes these expenditures all the more troubling is at the same
time the Guard was spending millions on pro-sports advertising, it was
also running out of money for critical training for our troops. In
fact, at the end of fiscal year 2014, the National Guard Bureau and
Army National Guard announced they were facing a $101 million shortfall
in the account used to pay National Guardsmen and could face a delay in
critical training and drills because they couldn't afford to pay
soldiers. Despite the fact that the Guard was facing serious threats to
meeting its primary mission and paying its current soldiers, it was
spending millions of taxpayer dollars on speakership and advertising
deals with professional sports leagues, such as the NFL.
This is obviously unacceptable. Providing for our common defense is
the highest duty of the Federal Government. At a time of crippling
budget cuts under sequestration, the Defense Department cannot afford
to waste its limited resources for the benefit of sports leagues that
rake in billions of dollars a year. Each of the four service Chiefs
have warned before the Senate Armed Services Committee this year that
sequestration is damaging our military readiness and putting American
lives in danger. We must conserve every precious defense dollar we have
at our disposal--which the NDAA does through important reforms to
acquisition, military retirement, personnel, headquarters and
management, and which our amendment would support by ending taxpayer-
funded soldier tributes at professional sporting events.

[[Page S3746]]

In addition to ending this shameful practice, this amendment calls
upon professional sports leagues like the NFL to donate--to donate--
these ill-gotten profits to charities supporting American troops,
veterans, and their families.
The NFL raked in revenues totaling some $9.5 billion. The absolute
least they can do to begin to make up for this terrible misjudgment is
to return those taxpayer dollars to charities supporting our troops,
veterans, and military families.
I thank my fellow Senator from the State of Arizona, Jeff Flake, who
has done terrific oversight of this issue. He was the first to expose
it and similar cases of wasteful and excessive government spending.
I also commend Senator Blumenthal for his longstanding commitment to
our troops and veterans, as well as the other Members of this body who
have supported our amendment.
Again, I thank Jeff Flake, who was first to blow the whistle on this
egregious use of American tax dollars, and also Senator Blumenthal.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, I also thank the senior Senator from
Arizona for helping me bring this amendment forward. I am proud to
cosponsor it with him and Senator Blumenthal.
I wish to make a couple of points. We have asked the Pentagon for a
full accounting, not just NFL teams but other teams that have received
such money. We want to make sure this practice stops.
Part of the reason it needs to stop is these teams that were
mentioned before by the senior Senator from Arizona and other teams
that have received this kind of money do a lot for the military out of
the goodness of their heart. They do a lot for the military and for
veterans who return, and we shouldn't discount that and don't want to
discount that.
The problem is, when some teams are accepting money to do what has
been termed ``paid-for patriotism,'' then it cheapens all the other
good work that has been done by these sports teams and others. So it is
important we stop this practice and make sure that when fans are there
and they see this outpouring of support for the military, they know it
is genuine--because there is a great deal of patriotism by those who
attend these games. We want to make sure people recognize it is done
for the right reason, and that is the reason for bringing this
amendment forward.
I, again, thank the senior Senator from Arizona for his work on this
amendment and other efforts to fight wasteful spending, making sure
that the funding that goes to our military and that we appropriate for
the Department of Defense--authorize for the Department of Defense--is
used for military purposes.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I withdraw my request with respect to
amendment No. 1543. It is my understanding we will call up this
amendment after the votes this afternoon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's request is withdrawn.
The Senator from Rhode Island.

Amendment No. 1506

Mr. REED. Madam President, I wish to comment briefly on the amendment
proposed by my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Tillis, with
respect to the stationing of the C-130 aircraft at Pope Army Airfield
in North Carolina.
The amendment states that these aircraft shall be positioned in Pope
Army Airfield. They are C-130 Avionics Modernization Program aircraft,
the AMP program. Basically, they are C-130H models that were upgraded.
In addition, the Air Force has C-130J models, the newest model. In the
give-and-take of the budget deliberations over the last few years, this
AMP modernization program is essentially curtailed dramatically because
the choice was buying new J models or fixing the old H models.
So, in effect, what we have is a group of C-130 modified aircraft
that are at Little Rock Air Force Base. They are only being minimally
maintained because these AMP-modified aircraft are not standard. They
are different from the traditional hotel model, and they are not as new
or as modern as the J model, and they are not being supported with AMP-
trained crews or AMP-unique logistics. Logistically, they are at Little
Rock Air Force Base and sort of caught up in this funding and
programmatic dilemma.
They are not fully deployable because of these conditions. They are
just sort of additive to the force structure of the C-130J. There are
only three that are modified, with five more to be modified. That would
be at $8 million per aircraft for about an additional multimillion
dollar pricetag. Therefore, they are not as functional as a unit since
there are only three aircraft and not a full complement. To operate
these aircraft would require additional resources.
The thrust of the gentleman's amendment is that these aircraft be
transferred to Pope Air Force Base in North Carolina, but they would
not really be effectively utilized by the forces there and would not,
in my view at least, contribute to the training and the real-time
operations of the 82nd Airborne Division, the XVIII Airborne Corps, and
the special operations forces that are there.
So rather than doing that, what we did in the underlying legislation
at section 136 is to go through and quite clearly have a careful review
of the adequacy of aircraft to support operations of the paratroop
forces at Fort Bragg so that the Air Force is fully supportive of this
very important issue. The 82nd is America's most ready Army force, and
of course we know special forces operators are all across the globe
constantly.
So my comments are that this amendment would not essentially help
what I think is the underlying goal, which is to ensure that our
airborne forces have the platforms necessary. It would, in fact,
restrict the flexibility of the Air Force in terms of using C-130
aircraft. It would practically have the effect of simply taking
aircraft that because of their modification and their
nonstandardization are being parked at Little Rock and moving them
without effect, I think, on the operational capacity and capabilities
of our airborne forces.
So as a result, I believe our best approach is to stay with the
language in the underlying bill, section 136, which--to the credit of
Senator Tillis, he was very adamant about including--would have a
careful review of the operational capacity of the Air Force to support
the airborne operations.
It would include the ability of commanders from the corps level,
XVIII Airborne Corps, 82nd, Special Operations Command, to comment
effectively on whether the Air Force was doing this. After such a
review and analysis, we could make better decisions about the
allocation of the Air Force aircraft.
Again, ironically--and again it strikes me that simply moving these
aircraft--which are sort of one-of-a-kind aircraft--to Pope would not
help the airborne operations of our military forces. They would simply
involve additional cost, and they would not be part of the ability of
our Air Force and our mobility command to support a wide range of
missions. They would complicate, rather than simplify, our ability to
respond.
So for that, when this vote, which is scheduled later today, comes up
for a vote, I will oppose it, and I will do so because I believe--in
the underlying legislation, through the work of Senator Tillis
particularly--we have an appropriate response to the issue of
flexibility, mobility, and operational capacity of our airborne forces
at Fort Bragg.
With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Grieving for the Biden Family

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, when a child predeceases the parent, it is
a grievous occasion, and we have been grieving for the President of the
Senate, the Vice President of the United States, for what he has been
going through--his whole family.

[[Page S3747]]

It is my belief Joe Biden has known for some period of time the
progression of his son, Beau's, cancer and, as a result, he has
continued to carry on his public duties while at the same time carrying
this huge burden.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the speech Joe Biden made to the Yale graduating class about 2 weeks
ago on Class Day.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Remarks by the Vice President at Yale University Class Day, Yale
University, New Haven, Connecticut

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Hello, Yale! (Applause.) Great to see
you all. (Applause.) Thank you very, very much.
Jeremy and Kiki, the entire Class of 2015, congratulations
and thank you for inviting me to be part of this special day.
You're talented. You've worked hard, and you've earned this
day.
Mr. President, faculty, staff, it's an honor to be here
with all of you.
My wife teaches full-time. I want you to know that--at a
community college, and has attended 8,640 commencements and/
or the similar versions of Class Day, and I know they can
hardly wait for the speaker to finish. (Laughter.) But I'll
do my best as quickly as I can.
To the parents, grandparents, siblings, family members, the
Class of 2015--congratulations. I know how proud you must be.
But, the Class of 2015, before I speak to you--please stand
and applaud the ones who loved you no matter what you're
wearing on your head and who really made this day happen.
(Laughter and applause.) I promise you all this is a bigger
day for them than it is for you. (Laughter.)
When President Obama asked me to be his Vice President, I
said I only had two conditions: One, I wouldn't wear any
funny hats, even on Class Day. (Laughter.) And two, I
wouldn't change my brand. (Applause.)
Now, look, I realize no one ever doubts I mean what I say,
the problem occasionally is I say all that I mean.
(Laughter.) I have a bad reputation for being straight.
Sometimes an inappropriate times. (Laughter.) So here it
goes. Let's get a couple things straight right off the bat:
Corvettes are better than Porsches; they're quicker and they
corner as well. (Laughter and applause.) And sorry, guys, a
cappella is not better than rock and roll. (Laughter and
applause.) And your pundits are better than Washington
pundits, although I've noticed neither has any shame at all.
(Laughter and applause.) And all roads lead to Toads? Give me
a break. (Laughter and applause.) You ever tried it on Monday
night? (Laughter.) Look, it's tough to end a great men's
basketball and football season. One touchdown away from
beating Harvard this year for the first time since 2006--so
close to something you've wanted for eight years. I can only
imagine how you feel. (Laughter.) I can only imagine.
(Applause.) So close. So close.
But I got to be honest with you, when the invitation came,
I was flattered, but it caused a little bit of a problem in
my extended family. It forced me to face some hard truths. My
son, Beau, the attorney general of Delaware, my daughter,
Ashley Biden, runs a nonprofit for criminal justice in the
state, they both went to Penn. My two nieces graduated from
Harvard, one an all-American. All of them think my being here
was a very bad idea. (Laughter.)
On the other hand, my other son, Hunter, who heads the
World Food Program USA, graduated from Yale Law School.
(Applause.) Now, he thought it's a great idea. But then
again, law graduates always think all of their ideas are
great ideas. (Laughter.)
By the way, I've had a lot of law graduates from Yale work
for me. That's not too far from the truth. But anyway, look,
the truth of the matter is that I have a lot of staff that
are Yale graduates, several are with me today. They thought
it was a great idea that I speak here.
As a matter of fact, my former national security advisor,
Jake Sullivan, who is teaching here at Yale Law School,
trained in international relations at Yale College, edited
the Yale Daily News, and graduated from Harvard--excuse me,
Freudian slip--Yale Law School. (Laughter.) You're lucky to
have him. He's a brilliant and decent and honorable man. And
I miss him. And we miss him as my national security advisor.
But he's not the only one. My deputy national security
advisor, Jeff Prescott, started and ran the China Law Center
at Yale Law School. My Middle East policy advisor and foreign
policy speechwriter, Dan Benaim, who is with me, took Daily
Themes--got a B. (Laughter.) Now you know why I go off script
so much. (Laughter and applause.)
Look, at a Gridiron Dinner not long ago, the President
said, I--the President--``I am learning to speak without a
teleprompter, Joe is learning to speak with one.''
(Laughter.) But if you looked at my speechwriters, you know
why.
And the granddaughter of one of my dearest friends in
life--a former Holocaust survivor, a former foreign policy
advisor, a former Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign
Affairs, Congressman Tom Lantos--is graduating today.
Mercina, congratulations, kiddo. (Applause.) Where are you?
You are the sixth--she's the sixth sibling in her immediate
family to graduate from Yale. Six out of 11, that's not a bad
batting average. (Laughter.) I believe it's a modern day
record for the number of kids who went to Yale from a single
family.
And, Mercina, I know that your mom, Little Annette is here.
I don't know where you are, Annette. But Annette was part of
the first class of freshman women admitted to Yale
University. (Applause.)
And her grandmother, Annette, is also a Holocaust survivor,
an amazing woman; and both I'm sure wherever they are,
beaming today. And I know one more thing, Mercina, your
father and grandfather are looking down, cheering you on.
I'm so happy to be here on your day and all of your day.
It's good to know there's one Yalie who is happy I'm being
here--be here, at least one. (Laughter.) On ``Overheard at
Yale,'' on the Facebook page, one student reported another
student saying: I had a dream that I was Vice President and
was with the President, and we did the disco funk dance to
convince the Congress to restart the government. (Laughter.)
Another student commented, Y'all know Biden would be
hilarious, get funky. (Laughter.)
Well, my granddaughter, Finnegan Biden, whose dad went
here, is with me today. When she saw that on the speech, I
was on the plane, Air Force Two coming up, she said, Pop, it
would take a lot more than you and the President doing the
disco funk dance. The Tea Party doesn't even know what it is.
(Laughter.)
Look, I don't know about that. But I'm just glad there's
someone--just someone--who dreams of being Vice President.
(Laughter and applause.) Just somebody. I never had that
dream. (Laughter.) For the press out there, that's a joke.
Actually, being Vice President to Barack Obama has been
truly a great honor. We both enjoy getting out of the White
House to talk to folks in the real America--the kind who know
what it means to struggle, to work hard, to shop at Kiko
Milano. (Laughter and applause.) Great choice. (Laughter.)
I just hope to hell the same people responsible for Kiko's
aren't in charge of naming the two new residential colleges.
(Laughter and applause.)
Now, look, folks, I spent a lot of time thinking about what
I should day to you today, but the more I thought about it, I
thought that any Class Day speech is likely to be redundant.
You already heard from Jessie J at Spring Fling. (Laughter.)
So what in the hell could I possibly say. (Laughter.)
Look, I'm deeply honored that Jeremy and Kiki selected me.
I don't know how the hell you trusted them to do that.
(Laughter.) I hope you agree with their choice. Actually I
hope by the end of this speech, they agree with their choice.
(Laughter.)
In their flattering invitation letter, they asked me to
bring along a sense of humor, speak about my commitment to
public service and family, talk about resiliency, compassion,
and leadership in a changing world. Petty tall order.
(Laughter.) I probably already flunked the first part of the
test.
But with the rest let me say upfront, and I mean this
sincerely, there's nothing particularly unique about me. With
regard to resilience and compassion, there are countless
thousands of people, maybe some in the audience, who've
suffered through personal losses similar to mine or much
worse with much less support to help them get through it and
much less reason to want to get through it.
It's not that all that difficult, folks, to be
compassionate when you've been the beneficiary of compassion
in your lowest moments not only from your family, but from
your friends and total strangers. Because when you know how
much it meant to you, you know how much it mattered. It's not
hard to be compassionate.
I was raised by a tough, compassionate Irish lady named
Catherine Eugenia Finnegan Biden. And she taught all of her
children that, but for the grace of God, there go you--but
for the grace of God, there go you.
And a father who lived his motto that, family was the
beginning, the middle, and the end. And like many of you and
your parents, I was fortunate. I learned early on what I
wanted to do, what fulfilled me the most, what made me
happy--my family, my faith, and being engaged in the public
affairs that gripped my generation and being inspired by a
young President named Kennedy--civil rights, the environment,
trying to end an incredibly useless and divisive war,
Vietnam.
The truth is, though, that neither I, nor anyone else, can
tell you what will make you happy, help you find success.
You each have different comfort levels. Everyone has
different goals and aspirations. But one thing I've observed,
one thing I know, an expression my dad would use often, is
real. He used to say, it's a lucky man or woman gets up in
the morning--and I mean this sincerely. It was one of his
expressions. It's a lucky man or woman gets up in the
morning, puts both feet on the floor, knows what they're
about to do, and thinks it still matters.
I've been lucky. And my wish for all of you is that not
only tomorrow, but 20 and 40 and 50 years from now, you've
found that sweet spot, that thing that allows you to get up
in the morning, put both feet on the floor, go out and pursue
what you love, and think it still matters.
Some of you will go to Silicon Valley and make great
contributions to empower individuals and societies and maybe
even design

[[Page S3748]]

a life-changing app, like how to unsubscribe to Obama for
America email list--(laughter)--the biggest ``pan-list'' of
all times.
Some of you will go to Wall Street and big Wall Street law
firms, government and activism, Peace Corps, Teach for
America. You'll become doctors, researchers, journalists,
artists, actors, musicians. Two of you--one of whom was one
of my former interns in the White House, Sam Cohen, and
Andrew Heymann--will be commissioned in the United States
Navy. Congratulations, gentlemen. We're proud of you.
(Applause.)
But all of you have one thing in common you will all seek
to find that sweet spot that satisfies your ambition and
success and happiness.
I've met an awful lot of people in my career. And I've
noticed one thing, those who are the most successful and the
happiest--whether they're working on Wall Street or Main
Street, as a doctor or nurse, or as a lawyer, or a social
worker, I've made certain basic observation about the ones
who from my observation wherever they were in the world were
able to find that sweet spot between success and happiness.
Those who balance life and career, who find purpose and
fulfillment, and where ambition leads them.
There's no silver bullet, no single formula, no reductive
list. But they all seem to understand that happiness and
success result from an accumulation of thousands of little
things built on character, all of which have certain common
features in my observation.
First, the most successful and happiest people I've known
understand that a good life at its core is about being
personal. It's about being engaged. It's about being there
for a friend or a colleague when they're injured or in an
accident, remembering the birthdays, congratulating them on
their marriage, celebrating the birth of their child. It's
about being available to them when they're going through
personal loss. It's about loving someone more than yourself,
as one of your speakers have already mentioned. It all seems
to get down to being personal.
That's the stuff that fosters relationships. It's the only
way to breed trust in everything you do in your life.
Let me give you an example. After only four months in the
United States Senate, as a 30-year-old kid, I was walking
through the Senate floor to go to a meeting with Majority
Leader Mike Mansfield. And I witnessed another newly elected
senator, the extremely conservative Jesse Helms, excoriating
Ted Kennedy and Bob Dole for promoting the precursor of the
Americans with Disabilities Act. But I had to see the Leader,
so I kept walking.
When I walked into Mansfield's office, I must have looked
as angry as I was. He was in his late '70s, lived to be 100.
And he looked at me, he said, what's bothering you, Joe?
I said, that guy, Helms, he has no social redeeming value.
He doesn't care--I really mean it--I was angry. He doesn't
care about people in need. He has a disregard for the
disabled.
Majority Leader Mansfield then proceeded to tell me that
three years earlier, Jesse and Dot Helms, sitting in their
living room in early December before Christmas, reading an ad
in the Raleigh Observer, the picture of a young man, 14-
years-old with braces on his legs up to both hips, saying,
all I want is someone to love me and adopt me. He looked at
me and he said, and they adopted him, Joe.
I felt like a fool. He then went on to say, Joe, it's
always appropriate to question another man's judgment, but
never appropriate to question his motives because you simply
don't know his motives.
It happened early in my career fortunately. From that
moment on, I tried to look past the caricatures of my
colleagues and try to see the whole person. Never once have I
questioned another man's or woman's motive. And something
started to change. If you notice, every time there's a crisis
in the Congress the last eight years, I get sent to the Hill
to deal with it. It's because every one of those men and
women up there--whether they like me or not--know that I
don't judge them for what I think they're thinking.
Because when you question a man's motive, when you say
they're acting out of greed, they're in the pocket of an
interest group, et cetera, it's awful hard to reach
consensus. It's awful hard having to reach across the table
and shake hands. No matter how bitterly you disagree, though,
it is always possible if you question judgment and not
motive.
Senator Helms and I continued to have profound political
differences, but early on we both became the most powerful
members of the Senate running the Foreign Relations
Committee, as Chairmen and Ranking Members. But something
happened, the mutual defensiveness began to dissipate. And as
a result, we began to be able to work together in the
interests of the country. And as Chairman and Ranking Member,
we passed some of the most significant legislation passed in
the last 40 years.
All of which he opposed--from paying tens of millions of
dollars in arrearages to an institution, he despised, the
United Nations--he was part of the so-called ``black
helicopter'' crowd; to passing the chemical weapons treaty,
constantly referring to, ``we've never lost a war, and we've
never won a treaty,'' which he vehemently opposed. But we
were able to do these things not because he changed his mind,
but because in this new relationship to maintain it is
required to play fair, to be straight. The cheap shots ended.
And the chicanery to keep from having to being able to vote
ended--even though he knew I had the votes.
After that, we went on as he began to look at the other
side of things and do some great things together that he
supported like PEPFAR--which by the way, George W. Bush
deserves an overwhelming amount of credit for, by the way,
which provided treatment and prevention HIV/AIDS in Africa
and around the world, literally saving millions of lives.
So one piece of advice is try to look beyond the caricature
of the person with whom you have to work. Resist the
temptation to ascribe motive, because you really don't know--
and it gets in the way of being able to reach a consensus on
things that matter to you and to many other people.
Resist the temptation of your generation to let ``network''
become a verb that saps the personal away, that blinds you to
the person right in front of you, blinds you to their hopes,
their fears, and their burdens.
Build real relationships--even with people with whom you
vehemently disagree. You'll not only be happier. You will be
more successful.
The second thing I've noticed is that although you know no
one is better than you, every other persons is equal to you
and deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.
I've worked with eight Presidents, hundreds of Senators.
I've met every major world leader literally in the last 40
years. And I've had scores of talented people work for me.
And here's what I've observed: Regardless of their academic
or social backgrounds, those who had the most success and who
were most respected and therefore able to get the most done
were the ones who never confused academic credentials and
societal sophistication with gravitas and judgment.
Don't forget about what doesn't come from this prestigious
diploma--the heart to know what's meaningful and what's
ephemeral; and the head to know the difference between
knowledge and judgment.
But even if you get these things right, I've observed that
most people who are successful and happy remembered a third
thing: Reality has a way of intruding.
I got elected in a very improbable year. Richard Nixon won
my state overwhelmingly. George McGovern was at the top of
the ticket. I got elected as the second-youngest man in the
history of the United States to be elected, the stuff that
provides and fuels raw ambition. And if you're not careful,
it fuels a sense of inevitability that seeps in. But be
careful. Things can change in a heartbeat. I know. And so do
many of your parents.
Six weeks after my election, my whole world was altered
forever. While I was in Washington hiring staff, I got a
phone call. My wife and three children were Christmas
shopping, a tractor trailer broadsided them and killed my
wife and killed my daughter. And they weren't sure that my
sons would live.
Many people have gone through things like that. But because
I had the incredible good fortune of an extended family,
grounded in love and loyalty, imbued with a sense of
obligation imparted to each of us, I not only got help. But
by focusing on my sons, I found my redemption.
I can remember my mother--a sweet lady--looking at me,
after we left the hospital, and saying, Joey, out of
everything terrible that happens to you, something good will
come if you look hard enough for it. She was right.
The incredible bond I have with my children is the gift I'm
not sure I would have had, had I not been through what I went
through. Who knows whether I would have been able to
appreciate at that moment in my life, the heady moment in my
life, what my first obligation was.
So I began to commute--never intending to stay in
Washington. And that's the God's truth. I was supposed to be
sworn in with everyone else that year in '73, but I wouldn't
go down. So Mansfield thought I'd change my mind and not
come, and he sent up the secretary of the Senate to swear me
in, in the hospital room with my children.
And I began to commute thinking I was only going to stay a
little while--four hours a day, every day--from Washington to
Wilmington, which I've done for over 37 years. I did it
because I wanted to be able to kiss them goodnight and kiss
them in the morning the next day. No, ``Ozzie and Harriet''
breakfast or great familial thing, just climb in bed with
them. Because I came to realize that a child can hold an
important thought, something they want to say to their mom
and dad, maybe for 12 or 24 hours, and then it's gone. And
when it's gone, it's gone. And it all adds up.
But looking back on it, the truth be told, the real reason
I went home every night was that I needed my children more
than they needed me. Some at the time wrote and suggested
that Biden can't be a serious national figure. If he was,
he'd stay in Washington more, attend to more important
events. It's obvious he's not serious. He goes home after the
last vote.
But I realized I didn't miss a thing. Ambition is really
important. You need it. And I certainly have never lacked in
having ambition. But ambition without perspective can be a
killer. I know a lot of you already understand this. Some of
you really had to struggle to get here. And some of you have
had to struggle to stay here. And some of your families made
enormous sacrifices for this great privilege. And many of you
faced your own crises, some unimaginable.

[[Page S3749]]

But the truth is all of you will go through something like
this. You'll wrestle with these kinds of choices every day.
But I'm here to tell you, you can find the balance between
ambition and happiness, what will make you really feel
fulfilled. And along the way, it helps a great deal if you
can resist the temptation to rationalize.
My chief of staff for over 25 years, one of the finest men
I've ever known, even though he graduated from Penn, and
subsequently became a senator from the state of Delaware,
Senator Ted Kaufman, every new hire, that we'd hire, the last
thing he'd tell them was, and remember never underestimate
the ability of the human mind to rationalize. Never
underestimate the ability of the human mind to rationalize--
her birthday really doesn't matter that much to her, and this
business trip is just a great opportunity; this won't be his
last game, and besides, I'd have to take the redeye to get
back. We can always take this family vacation another time.
There's plenty of time.
For your generation, there's an incredible amount of
pressure on all of you to succeed, particularly now that you
have accomplished so much. Your whole generation faces this
pressure. I see it in my grandchildren who are honors
students at other Ivy universities right now. You race to do
what others think is right in high school. You raced through
the bloodsport of college admissions. You raced through Yale
for the next big thing. And all along, some of you compare
yourself to the success of your peers on Facebook, Instagram,
Linked-In, Twitter.
Today, some of you may have found that you slipped into the
self-referential bubble that validates certain choices. And
the bubble expands once you leave this campus, the pressures
and anxiousness, as well--take this job, make that much
money, live in this place, hang out with people like you,
take no real risks and have no real impact, while getting
paid for the false sense of both.
But resist that temptation to rationalize what others view
is the right choice for you--instead of what you feel in your
gut is the right choice--that's your North Star. Trust it.
Follow it. You're an incredible group of young women and men.
And that's not hyperbole. You're an incredible group.
Let me conclude with this. I'm not going to moralize about
to whom much is given, much is expected, because most of you
have made of yourself much more than what you've been given.
But now you are in a privileged position. You're part of an
exceptional generation and doors will open to you that will
not open to others. My Yale Law School grad son graduated
very well from Yale Law School. My other son out of loyalty
to his deceased mother decided to go to Syracuse Law School
from Penn. They're a year and a day apart in their age. The
one who graduated from Yale had doors open to him, the lowest
salary offered back in the early `90s was $50,000 more than a
federal judge made. My other son, it was a struggle--equally
as bright, went on to be elected one of the youngest attorney
generals in the history of the state of Delaware, the most
popular public official in my state. Big headline after the
2012 election, ``Biden Most Popular Man in Delaware--Beau.''
(Laughter.)
And as your parents will understand, my dad's definition of
success is when you look at your son and daughter and realize
they turned out better than you, and they did. But you'll
have opportunities. Make the most of them and follow your
heart. You have the intellectual horsepower to make things
better in the world around you.
You're also part of the most tolerant generation in
history. I got roundly criticized because I could not remain
quiet anymore about gay marriage. The one thing I was certain
of is all of your generation was way beyond that point.
(Applause.)
Here's something else I observed--intellectual horsepower
and tolerance alone does not make a generation great: unless
you can break out of the bubble of your own making--
technologically, geographically, racially, and
socioeconomically--to truly connect with the world around
you. Because it matters.
No matter what your material success or personal
circumstance, it matters. You can't breathe fresh air or
protect your children from a changing climate no matter what
you make. If your sister is the victim of domestic violence,
you are violated. If your brother can't marry the man he
loves, you are lessened. And if your best friend has to worry
about being racially profiled, you live in a circumstance not
worthy of us. (Applause.) It matters.
So be successful. I sincerely hope some of you become
millionaires and billionaires. I mean that. But engage the
world around you because you will be more successful and
happier. And you can absolutely succeed in life without
sacrificing your ideals or your commitments to others and
family. I'm confident that you can do that, and I'm confident
that this generation will do it more than any other.
Look to your left, as they say, and look to your right. And
remember how foolish the people next to you look--
(laughter)--in those ridiculous hats. (Laughter.) That's what
I want you to remember. I mean this. Because it means you've
learned something from a great tradition.
It means you're willing to look foolish, you're willing to
run the risk of looking foolish in the service of what
matters to you. And if you remember that, because some of the
things your heart will tell you to do, will make you among
your peers look foolish, or not smart, or not sophisticated.
But we'll all be better for people of your consequence to do
it.
That's what I want you to most remember. Not who spoke at
the day you all assembled on this mall. You're a remarkable
class. I sure don't remember who the hell was my commencement
speaker. (Laughter.) I know this is not officially
commencement. But ask your parents when you leave here, who
spoke at your commencement? It's a commencement speaker
aversion of a commencement speaker's fate to be forgotten.
The question is only how quickly. But you're the best in your
generation. And that is not hyperbole. And you're part of a
remarkable generation.
And, you--you're on the cusp of some of the most
astonishing breakthroughs in the history of mankind--
scientific, technological, socially--that's going to change
the way you live and the whole world works. But it will be up
to you in this changing world to translate those
unprecedented capabilities into a greater measure of
happiness and meaning--not just for yourself, but for the
world around you.
And I feel more confident for my children and grandchildren
knowing that the men and women who graduate here today, here
and across the country, will be in their midst. That's the
honest truth. That's the God's truth. That's my word as a
Biden.
Congratulations, Class of 2015. And may God bless you and
may God protect our troops. Thank you.

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, it is noteworthy that the Vice President
discussed very frankly the tragedy he has had in his life, all while
knowing of this impending tragedy that was unfolding with his son,
Beau. The speech was vintage Biden, with a lot of humor and Irish
tales, but the essence of the speech came down to this, as he was
talking to the graduates:

Build real relationships--even with people with whom you
vehemently disagree. You'll not only be happier. You will be
more successful.

And he continued:

The second thing I've noticed is that although you know no
one is better than you, every other person is equal to you
and deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.

That is the essence of how in a democracy we have to get along. It is
known as the Golden Rule. Joe Biden talked about the Golden Rule
without saying it was the Golden Rule--treat others as you want to be
treated. Put into old English: Do unto others as you would have them do
unto you.
The Vice President talks in his speech about his time as a young
Senator, when he heard Senator Jesse Helms talking about an issue that
Senator Biden was opposed to. He felt it was violative of his basic
concept in the treatment of other people. In this case, I think it was
a question of disability. As he walked in to see the majority leader--
probably in that same office, in this case, Mike Mansfield--Senator
Mansfield, the leader, noticed that Joe was visibly upset and he said:
What is wrong? And Joe told him about this encounter with Senator
Helms.
Senator Mansfield then went on to say to Senator Biden: Don't ever
judge until you really know the person, because Senator Helms and his
wife had run into a situation where they found a severely disabled
child and, as a result, they adopted that child.
As a result, Senator Biden and Senator Helms became the best of
friends. Even though their politics were different, when they served as
the leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee--sometimes Helms
as chairman and sometimes Biden as chairman--they could disagree on the
issues, but they could get a lot done because they could work together.
That is because they built a relationship.
How different is that today, where each of us are racing out of here
on Thursday afternoons and evenings to go back to our States and we
hardly ever have time for each other, to understand the core of us as
humans and what makes us, drives us as we are. If we knew that about
each other, maybe we would find more common ground.
What I have found is that every one of these Senators is an
extraordinary person, extremely accomplished, and well motivated. They
try, we all try to do the right thing, but then we let the politics and
the ideology get in the way and it drives us apart. As a result, is it
any wonder that we have a dysfunctional Senate that has difficulty
getting along, particularly when you consider the arcane rules of the
Senate, which were designed to slow down the process.
When you don't have the relationship that can be built, when the two
leaders can't get along, when the Senate cannot be run by unanimous
consent, is

[[Page S3750]]

there any wonder that it is dysfunctional? Yet, we have the capacity,
just as Senator Biden and Senator Helms did, to overcome significant
differences and get things done.
At this time of grieving for the Biden family, as I read his Yale
speech, I was reminded that there is a lot about what was expressed
there in a grieving father who could not show his grief because it was
still very private. There is a lot of wisdom there. That is why I
entered it into the Record.
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.
Mr. KING. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Export-Import Bank

Mr. KING. Madam President, I rise today to discuss two important
issues--first, the Export-Import Bank.
There is a lot about this place that puzzles me, but one of the
things that this year has puzzled me the most is the movement to
somehow defund or end the Export-Import Bank. I just don't get it. This
is an agency of the Federal Government that has been extraordinarily
effective. It creates jobs in the United States. It supports jobs. It
supports American businesses. It supports small American businesses. It
returns money to the Treasury. It fills a market niche that the private
sector has been unwilling or unable to fill. This isn't competition
with the private sector. This isn't the government doing something the
private sector should do. This is the government filling a niche that
has been identified for over 80 years. And it makes a difference.
I have visited several small companies in Maine--I think there may be
eight or so--that benefit directly from this program, which supports 2
percent of the financing of U.S. exports.
We are engaged in intense global competition for the export of goods
and services, and to unilaterally disarm by taking away one of the
tools our businesses use just doesn't make any sense. I don't
understand what the impetus is for this move to undermine this very
valuable program that is important to our companies.
I toured a little company in Maine that resells computer and
networking equipment all over the world, particularly to third-world
countries that need this equipment desperately for various needs but
particularly for coping with emergencies. It is a small business in
Maine, has 35 employees, and is owned by a woman, Connie Justice. I
visited with her, and she told me this story. I don't like to read, but
I think this quote is so powerful from a real live business owner in
Maine as to how important this program is.

Ex-Im's Working Capital Loan Guarantee program helped us
expand our export sales during a period of rapid growth, when
private banks were unwilling to lend to us without a
guarantee.

This is important to understand, that one of the most important
programs the Export-Import Bank sponsors is a guarantee of receivables
from foreign countries, which American banks--quite logically in many
cases because they don't have the history, they can't collect--are very
reluctant to factor or to finance.
She said:

After 2 years of solid exports, our financial position
strengthened so that the Ex-Im guarantee was no longer
needed. Private banks now meet all our credit needs. Our
expansion and increased sales would have been impossible
without Ex-Im's involvement. We continue to use Ex-Im Bank to
insure our receivables to Ex-Im approved customers in
developing countries. We pay reasonable premiums for this
insurance.

This program makes money for the Federal government. This isn't a
handout. This isn't corporate welfare. They are paying insurance
premiums, which, over the past 20 years or so, have returned $7 billion
to the U.S. Treasury. This makes money. She pays her premiums, and that
is a positive for U.S. taxpayers.

Being able to offer open payment terms for U.S.-made goods
opens previously inaccessible markets for us. Our major
manufacturers--including HP, Dell and Lenovo--have committed
to making more systems domestically to comply with Ex-Im's
``Made in USA'' requirement for eligibility. This has a huge
multiplier effect on US employment. . . . Since 2004,
Planson's annual export sales have grown from $5 million to
$35 million. Our staff has grown from 5 to 35, and our
payroll has increased to almost $2 million. We use local
suppliers for a broad range of goods and services.

She goes on to conclude:

We achieve all this entirely through export sales. The U.S.
Export-Import Bank is a key partner in our success.

Why would we want to let this very valuable program expire for some
theoretical reason that, frankly, I just find inexplicable? It makes
money for the American taxpayers. It is projected to continue to make
money. But my passion here is about its support for small businesses in
Maine that otherwise could not make these sales into the international
market.
As I mentioned, allowing the Export-Import Bank charter to expire is
a kind of unilateral disarmament in an era of intense global
competition. It makes no sense. Sixty other countries have similar
kinds of programs, and if we take ours away, what we are doing is
handcuffing our businesses while the rest of the world is moving
forward with their programs to support exports.
I used to start speeches in Maine by saying, simply, ``Five
percent.'' People would look at me and say: What is he talking about, 5
percent? Well, 5 percent is the percentage of the world's population
that lives in North America. That means that if our businesses are
going to ultimately be successful, we have to sell into the rest of the
world. We have to be able to export, and the Export-Import Bank is a
very valuable tool in order to facilitate the export of goods from the
United States.

There is bipartisan support. I believe the votes are there in the
House. Senator McConnell has committed to a vote here in the Senate. I
commend Senator Cantwell and Senator Graham for their work on behalf of
this.
I hope we can bring this matter to a vote promptly and avoid the
deadline of June 30. I do not know why we cannot do things around here
before the night before. Let's get this done and move on to more
important topics. We should not even be having this debate. This ought
to be automatic, as, indeed, it has effectively been for some 80 years.
I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this program. We
should not be playing games with this important agency at a time of
such intense global competition.
Madam President, I also wish to talk about the national defense
authorization bill, which is also coming to the floor today and is on
the floor today.
Sixty-five years ago this week a freshman Senator from Maine rose on
this floor, in this place, and made one of the most important speeches
in American history. It certainly was one of the most important
speeches of the 20th century. It was June 1, 1950. That freshman
Senator was Margaret Chase Smith of Maine. I got to know Margaret Chase
Smith after she left the Senate, in the 1980s and 1990s in Maine,
before we lost her in 1995.
She told me about that speech. The speech was about the dangers to
the country and, particularly, to this institution of the practices of
Joseph McCarthy, of the smear campaigns, of the innuendo, of the
threats. Her speech took enormous courage. She told me two stories
about the speech that I think are interesting that I want to note
before I go on to the implications of that speech for what we are
considering today.
One was that, as she had the speech in her hand and got on the little
trolley to come from the Russell Building over here--at that time the
Russell Building was the only Senate office building--who should be
sitting in the trolley in the seat next to her but Joe McCarthy.
Senator Smith sat down and McCarthy turned to her and said: What are
you up to today, Margaret?
She told me that she responded: I am about to make a speech, Joe, and
you are not going to like it.
She went on to the Senate floor. She had written that speech with her
close aide Bill Lewis at her kitchen table in Skowhegan, ME, over
Memorial Day weekend of 1950. She had the speech in her hand, and Bill
Lewis was in the press gallery right up here. But she told him not to
hand out a copy of the speech until she was well into giving it on the
Senate floor because she was afraid that she would lose her nerve and
not deliver the speech.

[[Page S3751]]

That speech took enormous courage. It took enormous courage because
she was telling her colleagues an uncomfortable truth--an uncomfortable
truth. I believe that today it is also important that we face
uncomfortable truths.
I am a strong supporter of the National Defense Authorization Act
that is on the floor. I am a strong supporter of the need and the
importance and how crucial that bill is to the defense and the security
of this country. The most solid responsibility we have in this place is
set forth in the preamble to the Constitution itself: to ``provide for
the common defense'' and ``insure domestic Tranquility.'' That is what
governments are established to do. That is the basic fundamental
responsibility--to ``provide for the common defense'' and ``insure
domestic Tranquility.''
That is national security. That is what this bill that is on the
floor today is all about. I worked in subcommittee on it. I have been
to numerous, repeated hearings, as the Presiding Officer has, all
through the winter and early spring, where we learned about the
strategic challenges facing this country. I commend the chair of the
committee for putting this in a strategic context. We talked about big
issues with people such as Henry Kissinger and Brzezinski and Madeleine
Albright before we started talking about the specifics that are in this
bill. And then we had lengthy subcommittee meetings and subcommittee
markups.
For me, one of the most satisfying parts of my legislative experience
here has been the markup of this bill, where we met as a committee,
where we argued and debated and voted and had a lot of amendments and
tried to deal with it for 2 solid days and came to a conclusion, where,
as I recall, the vote out of the committee was something like 22 to 4.
It was a very powerful vote.

I am in total support of this piece of legislation. However, my
problem with the legislation is that it attempts to avoid the impact of
the sequester through the use of the overseas contingency account
money, which is not paid for.
We have had hearings. Every hearing we have had this year has been
talking about the danger of the sequester to national security. Indeed,
I have been working with a number of my colleagues to try to find a
solution for the sequester, but the solution for the sequester is not
simply to borrow the money from our grandchildren. What bothers me
about this legislation is that it is part of a pattern. When the chips
are down around here, we borrow the money from our grandchildren. If 5-
year-olds could vote and knew what we were doing to them, we would all
be dead ducks because we are passing the bill on to them. I think we
should fully fund the Department of Defense and the request at the
level that is in this bill. I just do not think we should borrow the
money to do it.
Make no mistake, that is what we are doing. We are saying it is very
important, these are important expenditures, and it is critical for
national defense that we make these expenditures but not critical
enough to pay for them. That is the pattern.
Earlier this year we passed the so-called tax extenders. They ought
to be called tax-cut extenders because that is what they are. Everybody
said they were important to economic development and they were
important for the country and important for certainty for businesses.
All that was true, but it was not enough to pay for them. We borrowed
the money.
Last year we passed a major rewrite of the Veterans' Administration
program, where everybody talked about how important this was, how
important the Veterans Affairs Department was to our veterans, how much
we owed our veterans, and how we had to take care of this. But then we
turned around and borrowed the money from our grandchildren in order to
fund it. We did not fund it.
Recently, just in the last month or so, we fixed the so-called doc
fix, which has been plaguing this place for a dozen years. But we did
not really fix it. We fixed it as far as the docs are concerned, but we
fixed it by borrowing the money. We did not pay for it.
Many of my colleagues talk a lot around here about the deficit and
the danger to the country. I think they are right. I think the deficit
is a serious danger to this country. But it seems that the deficit is
only a problem when we think it is a problem, and then the next day, it
is not a problem anymore because we are going to borrow $38 billion
more to put into this bill.
I think we need to stand up and pay for things. I am no angel. I
voted for all those things that I listed. But I think it is time to
start saying: Wait a minute; we cannot do this. By the way, by fixing
the sequester in the Department of Defense, of course, we are not
fixing it anywhere else in the Federal Government. Some people say:
Well, that is OK because defense is important, and we are not so
worried about these other programs. Well, I am sorry, but some of those
other programs are little items such as the FBI. There has never been a
time in the history of this country when the FBI was more important.
We are facing serious, dangerous imminent threats. To not fund the
FBI or the Border Patrol or the TSA and to have the sequester affect
those agencies and kid ourselves that we are dealing with our national
security responsibilities is just not responsible. It is just not
right. And to borrow the money to fix some of these things is not
responsible or fair to our grandchildren.
We are saying: We are just going to fix defense with this funny-money
deal, a gimmick wrapped up in a trick, but we are not going to fix
anything else. I talked about the FBI, the TSA, Border Patrol, and
national security issues, but what about NIH and what about scientific
research that can save lives? And we are having the sequester and
saying: It is OK; we can do that. What about education? What about,
yes, Head Start, which gives young people a chance to make a serious
contribution to this country?
I think the OCO trick that is in this bill is wrong on two counts. It
is wrong on three counts, actually. No. 1, it is not paid for. No. 2 it
is not really what the Defense Department needs. They need base budget
authority so they can plan, so they can look to the future, and so they
can make decisions on an ongoing basis that are necessary to commit to
programs, plans, and projects that will defend this country. The short-
term OCO solution does not do that. That is No. 2.
No. 3, by ignoring the needs of the rest of the Federal Government,
by ignoring the needs of other parts of the national security
apparatus, we are not serving the public we were sent here to look
after.
I support this bill, but I think we really ought to be thinking about
alternative ways to fund the needs we have identified. It is too easy
to say this is an important national priority but not important enough
to pay for it. We are continually--even today, after all of the talk
about deficits and budget control and everything else--finding ways to
shift the burden to our kids and to our grandchildren. I do not think
that is right.
Senator Reed of Rhode Island has an amendment to this bill that I
think is an important one. All it simply says is that we are not going
to spend that OCO money in defense until we solve the problem more
generally throughout the rest of the Federal Government.
I realize it is not the responsibility of the Defense Department or
of the Armed Services Committee to solve the overall budget problem
within the Defense bill. But I think we have a responsibility to look
at the larger problem, and we can contribute to its solution by saying
to our colleagues throughout this body and in the House that there has
to be a comprehensive solution before we say we are going to fix only
defense and we are only going to fix defense with borrowed money.
There are three ways to solve this budget problem--three ways. One is
by cuts, and there have already been substantial cuts. From the
projected budgets back in 2010, there is something like three-quarters
of a trillion dollars that has already been cut from defense and other
areas of the Federal budget. We have to continue to look at that, and
we have to look at all aspects of the Federal budget.
The second way is revenues. Nobody is supposed to talk about revenues
around here, but the reality is that we are not paying our bills. To
pat ourselves on the back for tax cuts when in

[[Page S3752]]

reality we are passing the expenses on to our children is just not
honest.
When we pass tax cuts here in a deficit situation and borrow the
money to fill the hole, we are not cutting taxes. We are shifting the
tax to our children. I do not think that is honest. I do not think that
is responsible. I do not think that is what we were sent here to do.
The third way, of course, to solve this budget problem is by economic
growth. Some people say that the only way to grow the economy is to cut
taxes. I have seen no economic study that says that works. Maybe it
works if you are reducing taxes, as they did in 1960, from a 90-percent
top marginal rate to now about 35 percent. Ok, I think that is
significant. But to reduce that marginal rate by two or three points
and say that it will stimulate a huge amount of economic activity--
there is no economic justification for that.
The two single biggest economic development projects in the recent
history of the United States were the GI bill after World War II and
the interstate highway system. Both of them were investments, both of
them cost money, and, by the way, our predecessors paid for them. They
didn't pass the bill on to us. They paid for them.
So, yes, we need to control taxes. Yes, we need to think about
strategic tax reductions in ways and areas that will actually help
stimulate the economy. I don't understand how having some guy who is
managing money in New York pay half the tax rate that his secretary
makes is a stimulus to the economy. Yet that is what we are doing.
We have to look at this problem in a comprehensive way. We have to
look at health care costs, we have to look at the effects of
demographics on Federal expenditures over the next 20 to 30 years, and
we have to look at investments that will help our economy grow.
The Presiding Officer and I work hard on this bill. I think it is an
important bill for the future of this country. I think it is an
important bill to protect the national security and to provide for the
common defense, but I think we need to do it in an honest and open way
and not try to fill a short-term budget gap with money our children and
our grandchildren are going to have to repay. I believe we can do this.
I believe we can face this responsibility because that is why we are
here.
I thank the Presiding Officer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, someone already asked unanimous consent
that U.S. Army MAJ Justin Gorkowski, who is a fellow in my Senate
office, be granted floor privileges for this debate.
I just wanted to explain how pleased and lucky we have been to have
the major with us to help with these issues. He is a graduate of West
Point. He currently serves as an information operations officer. He
served as an adviser to the Iraq Army during the surge in 2006 and 2007
and returned from Afghanistan in January of last year, where he had
been responsible for psychological operations, electronic warfare and
military deception for Kandahar Province. He has been a great addition
to our office during this debate, and in my view this debate is the
most important debate we have.
The No. 1 priority for the Federal Government is to defend the
country. We can spend all the time we want talking about all the other
priorities and all the things we should be doing and whether there is
some sudden mystical balance between all of those priorities and
defending the country, but in most of our States, and certainly in the
State of Missouri, the one thing you can get the least argument on as
to what the Federal Government should do that we can't do for ourselves
is defend the country. That is why for 54 years straight the Senate has
passed a defense authorizing bill every year. There are very few things
that get authorized every year, very few things that get debated every
year, very few things that get looked at every year, but our national
defense is one of those, and it is one of those for a reason.
We hear all kinds of reasons not to move forward with this bill, and
then you hear: But I am for the bill. Well, that is because people
understand that this is one of the things the Federal Government is
supposed to do and in my view the top thing we can't in any way do for
ourselves. Local government can't do this, State governments can't do
this, individually we cannot do this, and that is why this debate is
always so important and why the Armed Services Committee voted this out
22 to 4 after all kinds of discussions, such as, well, maybe the
minority would not vote for this for the reasons we just heard. But at
the end of the day, the vote was 22 to 4 out of the committee.
Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed have done a good job of
bringing this bill to the floor with bipartisan support and looking for
ways to reform defense so we really focus our defense where the
defenders are rather than where the defenders are not.
This bill is focused on eliminating wasteful spending. It focuses on
finding ways to reduce bureaucracy and streamline the critical military
functions we have. It puts a focus on the fighting forces, not the
bureaucratic forces in the defense structure.
The bill identifies $10 billion in excessive and unnecessary spending
and reallocates those funds to our true military capabilities. It also
modernizes the military retirement system so that many more who served
have a retirement benefit from serving. The current retirement system
benefits less than 20 percent of those who served in the Armed Forces
because the people who benefit from the retirement program are people
who serve 20 years and retire at that point. This bill would create a
system where servicemembers and taxpayers join together to create a
retirement benefit which estimates that 75 percent of the people who
served in the military would leave with a retirement benefit rather
than only 17, 18, 20 percent of the people who leave the military. It
is a reform that really honors all of those who served in a good way
and doesn't penalize anyone who served. It still allows people who have
been serving under the old system to stay under the old system.
Obviously, the longer you stay in that system, the better you are going
to do. But the options now are basically no retirement benefit or a
retirement benefit that comes with substantial service and only with
that kind of service.
This bill creates retention bonuses to keep people in the military
longer than 20 years. We have men and women retiring at the height of
their capacity with technical skills that are not easily replaced. This
bill recognizes that and looks for ways to encourage them to continue
to serve.
Our State, the State of Missouri, has a real commitment to the
military. More than 17,000 Active-Duty servicemembers serve in
Missouri. We have important bases in our State. We have 8,000 civilian
Department of Defense employees and more than 20,000 members of the
Reserve and the National Guard.
This bill authorizes funding to build a Consolidated Stealth
Operations and Nuclear Alert Facility at Whiteman Air Force Base. It
preserves and prevents the retirement of the A-10 plane that has wide
support in the Congress, but more importantly the A-10 has wide support
from the ground forces it supports from the air. When you talk to
people who serve on the ground, General Odierno and others, will say
that in their view there is no plane that does what this plane does. Of
course, those who fly it and support it are very important. Whiteman
Air Force Base, again, has the 442nd Fighter Wing. It is an A-10
fighter wing which just returned from a deployment.
This bill also authorizes upgrades in our cargo aircraft, such as the
C-130 aircraft, which will help the main force as well as the National
Guard and Reserves.
In fact, Rosecrans Air National Guard Base in St. Joseph is a great
training facility not only for our forces, but that base also serves as
a training facility for our allies. At least 16 of our allies trained
at this facility last year so they could figure out how to get
supplies, how to get troops, and how to move things with those cargo
planes in ways that they would not otherwise be able to do.
This bill also takes an important step in moving forward with the new
bomber. There is money here that would continue to fund the new plan

[[Page S3753]]

for the idea out there for a long-range bomber. We have to have that.
We have to have a precision bombing capability that is better than
anybody else's. The planes we are using now have been the best planes
in the world for a long time, but they will not be the best planes in
the world forever, and it is time to begin to move forward, as we have
been, toward that new plane. Those are all important projects. There
are key initiatives here, such as promoting accountability and
promoting the standards we need to have for performance in the military
and how we reward those standards.
This bill maintains critical quality-of-life programs for men and
women who serve and their families. This bill addresses the needs of
our wounded, ill, and injured servicemembers.
This bill continues to provide critical assistance to our allies,
particularly our ally Israel, where we have significant common research
efforts. As we have all seen in recent years, the David's Sling and
Iron Dome weapon systems are critical not only for Israel's security,
but they have been a critical proving ground for the kind of response
that was once looked at as some kind of unachievable ``Star Wars''
capacity. Both David's Sling and the Iron Dome have proved that
capacity is, in fact, truly achievable, and we continue to move forward
with that kind of defense system in this bill.
This also goes a long way toward combating threats of cyber space and
cyber security by evaluating what those vulnerabilities are and dealing
with those vulnerabilities.
I want to mention a few amendments I filed and intend to offer before
we move on with this bill. I believe my amendments will strengthen the
bill. First, I believe the military's mental health screening process
can be improved. We learned a lot about mental health and behavioral
health over the past 15 years. I believe we can continue to adapt and,
frankly, last year's Defense authorization bill had important steps in
this direction. I was able to get on the bill when I was a member of
the committee last year--not just the defense appropriating committee I
serve on now but the defense authorizing committee I served on then.
The amendments I will offer will improve the predeployment health
assessment and postdeployment health reassessment by requiring that all
servicemembers be screened and that they don't have to meet some
criteria that every member of the service may not meet. While people
are serving, it is important to establish the things that have happened
to them, so if they need help years later, perhaps, and come back and
ask for assistance in what truly was a post-traumatic event which was
caused by their service but didn't show up for a number of years,
having the incidents and things that might have affected their mental
health is important.
The National Institutes of Health says that one in four adult
Americans has a diagnosable and almost always treatable behavioral
health issue.
I asked the Surgeon Generals of the Armed Forces if that number
applies to the Armed Forces, and without hesitation they said yes. They
said: We recruit from the general population and there is no reason
that number wouldn't apply to people serving us in uniform.
The key is diagnosable and treatable--diagnosable and treatable in a
way that people aren't held back by their behavior health issues any
more than they are held back by their physical health issues. They just
need to be dealt with.
We will look at mild traumatic stress injury potential, post-
traumatic stress injury potential, and look at the things that might
affect somebody as they move forward from their time in the service.
What happens in the service and what can happen years after really
matters.
I think those amendments on mental health meet the evolving needs of
servicemembers and hopefully the evolving needs of how we understand
behavioral health as it relates to all other health.
I have another amendment that would not allow the Army to go below
the currently authorized end strength level of 475,000 soldiers. There
are threats around the world, and we need to increase our national
security.
We heard General Odierno, Chief of Staff of the Army, testify earlier
this year before the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee about the risk
associated with going below 490,000 soldiers. This amendment would say
you can't go below the 475,000 soldiers until the Secretary of Defense
tells the Congress how he plans to reduce excess headquarters elements
and excess administrative overhead.
Just this morning, I read an article from military.com discussing
Navy Secretary Ray Mabus's recent comments about excessive bloat--his
term--in the DOD headquarters functions.
The article states:

Secretary Mabus said Pentagon and Congressional budget
cutters should look at eliminating extra bureaucracy before
slashing funds for sailors and ships.
Mabus said 20 percent of the Pentagon budget is spent on
what he called ``pure overhead''--items not directory linked
to readiness or ongoing operations.
He [Mabus] referred to this ``overhead'' as the fourth
estate, specifying entities such as the office of the
Secretary of Defense, defense agencies and organizations
funded by the Under Secretaries of Defense.

Here is a direct quote from Secretary Mabus:

There are other places to look rather than taking tools
from the warfighter. To the extent you can, protect the stuff
that actually gets to the warfighter.

I think my amendment would ensure that the Secretary of Defense has
to take that quote to heart.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate has an order for a vote at this
hour.
Mr. BLUNT. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BLUNT. I wish to make one other comment on one other amendment I
have that I will speak more about later in this debate. It involves a
concern I have for Iran's growing influence in Iraq and the failure we
have had in maintaining the commitment we made to those Camp Liberty
residents whom we promised to protect. More than 100 residents have
been killed at Camp Liberty.
I recognize the State Department's ongoing efforts, but they are not
good enough. I believe the Secretary of Defense needs to certify to the
defense committees that the central government of Iraq is taking
appropriate and sufficient steps to ensure the safety and security of
Iranian dissidents housed in Camp Liberty in Iraq.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.

Amendment No. 1494

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2
minutes on the pending amendment No. 1494.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, the Supreme Court has ruled it is
unconstitutional to deny Federal benefits to legally married, same-sex
couples and their children. Yet due to unrelated provisions of the
Federal Code, State legislatures have the ability to indirectly deny
Federal benefits to certain disabled veterans and their families solely
because they are in a same-sex marriage. This is unjust and, according
to the Supreme Court, it is unconstitutional.
This amendment we are about to vote on would end the current
prohibition on benefits for gay and lesbian veterans and their families
living in States that do not recognize same-sex marriage.
I wish to quote from testimony we heard from the VFW at a Senate
Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing last month. The VFW said this, and
I hope all of my colleagues will keep this in mind as we vote. ``Simply
put, if a veteran is legally married in a State that recognizes same-
sex marriage, we''--the VFW--``believe the VA should provide benefits
to his or her spouse or surviving spouse the same way it does for every
other legally married veteran.''
Many of us speak all the time about the need to honor the service of
our veterans and to make sure they have access to the care they
deserve. This amendment will right a wrong that so many of our veterans
who have fought and volunteered deserve to have.
I hope our colleagues will support this amendment so we can ensure
that those veterans are treated equally.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on

[[Page S3754]]

agreeing to amendment No. 1494, offered by the Senator from New
Hampshire, Mrs. Shaheen.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Nevada (Mr.
Heller), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from
Florida (Mr. Rubio).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 42, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 203 Leg.]

YEAS--53

Ayotte
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Flake
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johnson
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Portman
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--42

Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Gardner
Grassley
Hatch
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Lankford
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Paul
Perdue
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker

NOT VOTING--5

Boxer
Graham
Heller
Moran
Rubio
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). Under the previous order
requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is
rejected.

Amendment No. 1506

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now
occurs on amendment No. 1506, offered by the Senator from North
Carolina, Mr. Tillis.
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I want to thank Matt Donovan and Stephen
Barney of Senator McCain's staff for their patience and assistance in
drafting this amendment.
I also want to thank COL Anthony Lazarski of Senator Inhofe's staff
and, of course my senior colleague from Oklahoma.
I say to the chairman and Senator Reed, I have the privilege of
representing America's Global Response Force, the XVIII ABN Corps and
the 82nd ABN Division.
As Senator Reed knows from his long service in the division, the 82nd
is the most decorated combat unit in the Armed Forces--it is America's
Guard of Honor.
GEN Colin Powell famously said, ``There is nothing that gets a bad
guy's attention quicker than knowing the 82nd ABN is flying straight
for his nose.''
But to put it bluntly, the Air Force wants to take the ``air'' out of
``airborne''.
In 2012 the Air Force decided to deactivate the Reserve Air Wing at
Pope Army Airfield at Fort Bragg and eliminate onsite daily support for
training for XVIII ABN Corps, 82nd ABN and USASOC.
The wing consists of 8-12 C-130Hs.
Last year this committee required the Air Force to produce a report
on the C-130 fleet during which time the Air Force was required to
maintain its wings at Pope and Little Rock for 1 year--the report came
out in April, the committee expected it last December. The Congress was
to be given time to respond.
Unfortunately, the Air Force began dismantling the Wing at Pope long
before the report was produced and in direct opposition to this
committee's instructions. When asked about this, the Air Force said,
``Congress said nothing about us taking away pilots and maintainers, we
are leaving the Aircraft''.
The chairman's mark is full of behaviors like this: including Air
Force refusal to heed the recommendations of the National Commission on
the Air Force and the SECAF's refusal to cut the size of AF
headquarters.
In my brief time in this body I have repeatedly asked the Air Force
for documentation as to the impact on Airborne and Special Operations
training the departure of dedicated Air Force Wings will have. I have
been rebuffed by Pentagon leadership.
The Deputy Commander of the USAF Reserve said that planes at Pope
were a ``luxury''. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force said that the
Air Force needed to maintain C-130s at Minneapolis, Youngstown, and
Pittsburgh for important missions. With all due respect is there any
mission at Pittsburgh, Youngstown, and Minneapolis that is as important
as supporting Airborne and Special Operations units.
In the last 3 months, the commanders of the XVIII ABN Corps and 82nd
ABN have taken the extraordinary step of delivering public speeches
noting that Airborne and Special Operations leadership were not
consulted about the Air Force decision and that the loss of onsite
planes will severely hamper their ability to train and meet
requirements of emergency contingencies.
The Pope planes provide between 25 to 40 percent of all Airborne and
SOF daily training missions. Last year they dropped 50 percent of the
82nd ABN's chutes; 440 AW provides 100 percent of 18 ASOG, Air Force,
training--Air Force Special Operations Group.
Even as a cost savings device, the transfer of 8 to 12 planes out of
Pope makes no sense, as planes will have to be flown in--often on a
voluntarily basis if they are Reserve units--from around the country
and those units will have to go on TDY orders, etcetera. This also does
not provide for the moving to the left effects of weather grounding
planes that would have to fly into Pope from the rest of the country.
As the XVIII ABN Corps Commander said, the downstream effects will be
problematic.
This amendment is simple and it supports the C-130 Avionic
Modernization Program that the Air Land Subcommittee validated
yesterday by accepting the chairman's $75 million mark and the Manchin
amendment.
The Secretary of the Air Force shall, by September 30, 2017, station
aircraft previously modified by the C-130 Avionics Modernization
Program, AMP, in direct support of the daily training and contingency
requirements of the Army Airborne and Special Operations units. The
Secretary shall provide such personnel as required to maintain and
operate such aircraft.
There are roughly 260 C-130Hs left--I believe the AF will try and
retire up to 100, and it will hopefully replace 50 more with C-130J
models--this leaves 100 C-130Hs that need AMP.
The AF spent $2.3 billion on C-130H AMP, the program was on schedule
and cost when the AF cancelled it, the design was validated by the
JROC, Joint Requirements Oversight Council, and the program had begun
Low Rate Initial Production, LRIP.
We currently have five C-130H AMP aircraft at Little Rock that will
be flown to the bone yard at a loss of approx $300 million, as well as
four AMP kits that can be modified to fit any C-130H, three simulators
and all software that will be thrown away
We can have nine AMP C-130Hs plus simulators and software for $75
million--this also adheres to the law Congress passed last year and was
validated by the Manchin amendment yesterday.
The bottom line is, if the AF does not take this course, it will send
the five C-130H AMP aircraft to the boneyard, wasting $300 million, not
to mention the simulators and software. Total amount spent for AMP was
$2.3 billion. Program was approved by JROC and was on schedule and cost
when AF tried to cancel it. There are roughly 260 C-130Hs left--I
believe the AF will try and retire up to 100, and it will hopefully
replace 50 more with C-130J models--this leaves 100 C-130Hs that need
AMP. Total cost to get nine aircraft, all simulators and software
running again is approximately $75M which was funded this year.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.

[[Page S3755]]

Mr. REED. Mr. President, very quickly, the Senator from North
Carolina worked very hard to get legislative language in the bill which
has a study of the sufficiency of the airlift requirements for the
units stationed at Fort Bragg, NC. This legislation would take several
aircraft that are at Little Rock and move them up to North Carolina. It
would not effectively help the mobility of our forces. It would
micromanage the use of military aircraft. As such, I would ask that
there be a ``no'' vote.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from South Carolina
(Mr. Graham), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from
Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer),
the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), and the Senator from Vermont
(Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 44, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 204 Leg.]

YEAS--48

Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Burr
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Grassley
Hatch
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kirk
Lankford
Lee
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker

NAYS--44

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boozman
Brown
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cotton
Donnelly
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Reid
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--8

Alexander
Boxer
Durbin
Graham
Heller
Moran
Rubio
Sanders
The amendment (No. 1506) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

Change Of Vote

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 204 I voted yes. It
was my intention to vote no. I ask unanimous consent that I be
permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 204, I voted yes. It
was my intention to vote no. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I
be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Vote Explanation

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for vote
No. 204 on Tillis amendment No. 1506. Had I been in the Chamber I would
have opposed this amendment. Section 136 of the underlying bill
requires the Secretary of the Air Force in consultation with the
Secretary of the Army to examine the daily training and contingency
requirements of the C-130 fleet on this issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

Amendments Nos. 1618, 1539, 1551, 1571, 1484, and 1511 to Amendment No.
1463

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the ranking member and I have a small
package of amendments that have been cleared by both sides.
I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up,
reported by number, and agreed to en bloc: Shaheen No. 1618; McCain,
Blumenthal, and Flake No. 1539; Shaheen No. 1551; Warner No. 1571;
Hoeven No. 1484; and Heller No. 1511.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendments en bloc by number.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for others, proposes
en bloc amendments numbered 1618, 1539, 1551, 1571, 1484, and
1511 to amendment No. 1463.

The amendments en bloc are as follows:

Amendment No. 1618

In the appropriate place please insert the following:
SENSE OF SENATE.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) the accidental transfer of live Bacillus anthracis,
also known as anthrax, from an Army laboratory to more than
28 laboratories located in at least 12 states and three
countries discovered in May 2015 represents a serious safety
lapse;
(2) the Department of Defense, in cooperation with the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, should continue to investigate the
cause of this lapse and determine if protective protocols
should be strengthened;
(3) the Department of Defense should reassess standards on
a regular basis to ensure they are current and effective to
prevent a reoccurrence; and
(4) the Department of Defense should keep Congress apprised
of the investigation, any potential public health or safety
risk, remedial actions taken and plans to regularly reassess
standards.

Amendment No. 1539

(Purpose: To prohibit the Department of Defense from entering into
contracts to facilitate payments for honoring members of the Armed
Forces at sporting events)

Insert after section 342 the following:

SEC. 342A. PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTS TO FACILITATE PAYMENTS
FOR HONORING MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AT
SPORTING EVENTS.

(a) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) the Army National Guard has paid professional sports
organizations to honor members of the Armed Forces;
(2) any organization wishing to honor members of the Armed
Forces should do so on a voluntary basis, and the Department
of Defense should take action to ensure that no payments be
made for such activities in the future; and
(3) any organization, including the National Football
League, that has accepted taxpayer funds to honor members of
the Armed Forces should consider directing an equivalent
amount of funding in the form of a donation to a charitable
organization that supports members of the Armed Forces,
veterans, and their families.
(b) Prohibition.--
(1) In general.--Subchapter I of chapter 134 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by inserting after section
2241a the following new section:

``Sec. 2241b. Prohibition on contracts providing payments for
activities to honor members of the armed forces

``(a) Prohibition.--The Department of Defense may not enter
into any contract or other agreement under which payments are
to be made in exchange for activities by the contractor
intended to honor, or giving the appearance of honoring,
members of the armed forces (whether members of the regular
components or the reserve components) at any form of sporting
event.
``(b) Construction.--Nothing in subsection (a) shall be
construed as prohibiting the Department from taking actions
to facilitate activities intended to honor members of the
armed forces at sporting events that are provided on a pro
bono basis or otherwise funded with non-Federal funds if such
activities are provided and received in accordance with
applicable rules and regulations regarding the acceptance of
gifts by the military departments, the armed forces, and
members of the armed forces.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of subchapter I of chapter 134 of such title is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 2241a
the following new item:

``2241b. Prohibition on contracts providing payments for activities to
honor members of the armed forces at sporting events.''.

Amendment No. 1551

(Purpose: To require a study and report on the changes to the Joint
Travel Regulations related to flat rate per diem for long term
temporary duty travel that took effect on November 1, 2014)

At the end of subtitle C of title VI, add the following:

SEC. 622. STUDY AND REPORT ON POLICY CHANGES TO THE JOINT
TRAVEL REGULATIONS.

(a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study on

[[Page S3756]]

the impact of the policy changes to the Joint Travel
Regulations for the Uniformed Service Members and Department
of Defense Civilian Employees related to flat rate per diem
for long term temporary duty travel that took effect on
November 1, 2014. The study shall assess the following:
(1) The impact of such changes on shipyard workers who
travel on long-term temporary duty assignments.
(2) Whether such changes have discouraged employees of the
Department of Defense, including civilian employees at
shipyards and depots, from volunteering for important
temporary duty travel assignments.
(b) Report.--Not later than June 1, 2016, the Comptroller
General shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of
the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House
of Representatives a report on the study required by
subsection (a).

Amendment No. 1571

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress on diversity among members
of the Armed Forces)

At the end of subtitle C of title V, add the following:

SEC. 524. SENSE OF CONGRESS RECOGNIZING THE DIVERSITY OF THE
MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The United States military includes individuals with a
variety of national, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds that
have roots all over the world.
(2) In addition to diverse backgrounds, members of the
Armed Forces come from numerous religious traditions,
including Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, non-
denominational, nonpracticing, and many more.
(3) Members of the Armed Forces from diverse backgrounds
and religious traditions have lost their lives or been
injured defending the national security of the United States.
(4) Diversity contributes to the strength of the Armed
Forces, and service members from different backgrounds and
religious traditions share the same goal of defending the
United States.
(5) The unity of the Armed Forces reflects the strength in
diversity that makes the United States a great Nation.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the United States should--
(1) continue to recognize and promote diversity in the
Armed Forces; and
(2) honor those from all diverse backgrounds and religious
traditions who have made sacrifices in serving the United
States through the Armed Forces

Amendment No. 1484

(Purpose: To require a report on Air National Guard contributions to
the RQ-4 Global Hawk mission)

In title XVI, after subtitle A, insert the following:

Subtitle B--Defense Intelligence and Intelligence-related Activities

SEC. 1621. REPORT ON AIR NATIONAL GUARD CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE
RQ-4 GLOBAL HAWK MISSION.

(a) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Air
Force, in coordination with the Chief of Staff of the Air
Force and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, shall
submit to Congress a report on the feasibility of using the
Air National Guard in association with the active duty Air
Force to operate and maintain the RQ-4 Global Hawk.
(b) Contents.--The report required by (a) shall include the
following:
(1) An assessment of the costs, training requirements, and
personnel required to create an association for the Global
Hawk mission consisting of members of the Air Force serving
on active duty and members of the Air National Guard.
(2) The capacity of the Air National Guard to support an
association described in paragraph (1).

Amendment No. 1511

(Purpose: To require additional elements in the report on the plan on
the privatization of the defense commissary system)

On page 265, strike line 15 and insert the following:
result of the implementation of the plan;
(C) an assessment whether the privatized defense commissary
system under the plan can sustain the current savings to
patrons of the defense commissary system;
(D) an assessment of the impact that privatization of the
defense commissary system under the plan would have on all
eligible beneficiaries;
(E) an assessment whether the privatized defense commissary
system under the plan can sustain the continued operation of
existing commissaries; and
(F) an assessment whether privatization of the defense
commissary system is feasible for overseas commissaries.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amendments Nos.
1618, 1539, 1551, 1571, 1484, and 1511 are agreed to en bloc.

Amendment No. 1543 to Amendment No. 1463

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Paul, I ask unanimous
consent to set aside the pending amendment in order to call up
amendment No. 1543.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Paul,
proposes an amendment numbered 1543 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 strengthen employee cost savings suggestions programs
within the Federal Government)

At the end of title XI, add the following:

SEC. 1116. COST SAVINGS ENHANCEMENTS.

(a) In General.--Section 4512 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting
``or identification of surplus funds or unnecessary budget
authority'' after ``mismanagement'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or identification''
after ``disclosure''; and
(C) in the matter following paragraph (2), by inserting
``or identification'' after ``disclosure''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) The Inspector General of an agency or other agency
employee designated under subsection (b) shall refer to the
Chief Financial Officer of the agency any potential surplus
funds or unnecessary budget authority identified by an
employee, along with any recommendations of the Inspector
General or other agency employee.
``(d)(1) If the Chief Financial Officer of an agency
determines that rescission of potential surplus funds or
unnecessary budget authority identified by an employee would
not hinder the effectiveness of the agency, except as
provided in subsection (e), the head of the agency shall
transfer the amount of the surplus funds or unnecessary
budget authority from the applicable appropriations account
to the general fund of the Treasury.
``(2) Title X of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 681 et seq.) shall not apply to
transfers under paragraph (1).
``(3) Any amounts transferred under paragraph (1) shall be
deposited in the Treasury and used for deficit reduction,
except that in the case of a fiscal year for which there is
no Federal budget deficit, such amounts shall be used to
reduce the Federal debt (in such manner as the Secretary of
the Treasury considers appropriate).
``(e)(1) The head of an agency may retain not more than 10
percent of amounts to be transferred to the general fund of
the Treasury under subsection (d).
``(2) Amounts retained by the head of an agency under
paragraph (1) may be--
``(A) used for the purpose of paying a cash award under
subsection (a) to 1 or more employees who identified the
surplus funds or unnecessary budget authority; and
``(B) to the extent amounts remain after paying cash awards
under subsection (a), transferred or reprogrammed for use by
the agency, in accordance with any limitation on such a
transfer or reprogramming under any other provision of law.
``(f)(1) The head of each agency shall submit to the
Director of the Office of Personnel Management an annual
report regarding--
``(A) each disclosure of possible fraud, waste, or
mismanagement or identification of potentially surplus funds
or unnecessary budget authority by an employee of the agency
determined by the agency to have merit;
``(B) the total savings achieved through disclosures and
identifications described in subparagraph (A); and
``(C) the number and amount of cash awards by the agency
under subsection (a).
``(2)(A) The head of each agency shall include the
information described in paragraph (1) in each budget request
of the agency submitted to the Office of Management and
Budget as part of the preparation of the budget of the
President submitted to Congress under section 1105(a) of
title 31, United States Code.
``(B) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management
shall submit to the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate, the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives, and the Government Accountability Office an
annual report on Federal cost saving and awards based on the
reports submitted under subparagraph (A).
``(g) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management
shall--
``(1) ensure that the cash award program of each agency
complies with this section; and
``(2) submit to Congress an annual certification indicating
whether the cash award program of each agency complies with
this section.
``(h) Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of
this subsection, and every 3 years thereafter, the
Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to
Congress a report on the operation of the cost savings and
awards program under this section, including any
recommendations for legislative changes.''.
(b) Officers Eligible for Cash Awards.--
(1) In general.--Section 4509 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:

[[Page S3757]]

``Sec. 4509. Prohibition of cash award to certain officers

``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the term `agency'--
``(1) has the meaning given that term under section 551(1);
and
``(2) includes an entity described in section 4501(1).
``(b) Prohibition.--An officer may not receive a cash award
under this subchapter if the officer--
``(1) serves in a position at level I of the Executive
Schedule;
``(2) is the head of an agency; or
``(3) is a commissioner, board member, or other voting
member of an independent establishment.''.
(2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of
sections for chapter 45 of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by striking the item relating to section 4509 and
inserting the following:

``4509. Prohibition of cash award to certain officers.''.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.

Amendment No. 1564 to Amendment No. 1463

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside, and on behalf of Mr. Blumenthal, I call up
amendment No. 1564.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Rhode Island, [Mr. Reed], for Mr.
Blumenthal, proposes an amendment numbered 1564 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 increase civil penalties for violations of the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act)

At the end of subtitle G of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1085. INCREASE IN CIVIL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF
SERVICEMEMBERS CIVIL RELIEF ACT.

(a) In General.--Section 801(b)(3) of the Servicemembers
Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. App. 597(b)(3)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``$55,000'' and
inserting ``$110,000''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``$110,000'' and
inserting ``$220,000''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date that is 180 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act and shall apply with respect to
violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C.
App. 501 et seq.) that occur on or after such date.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that this
amendment be considered as if it were offered before Senator Paul's
amendment to maintain an alternation between Democratic amendments and
Republican amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1559 to Amendment No. 1463

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside, and on behalf of Senator Durbin I call up
amendment No. 1559.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for Mr. Durbin,
proposes an amendment numbered 1559 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 prohibit the award of Department of Defense contracts to
inverted domestic corporations)

At the end of subtitle B of title VIII, add the following:

SEC. 832. PROHIBITION ON AWARDING OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
CONTRACTS TO INVERTED DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS.

(a) Prohibition.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 137 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

``Sec. 2338. Prohibition on awarding contracts to inverted
domestic corporations

``(a) Prohibition.--
``(1) In general.--The head of an agency may not award a
contract for the procurement of property or services to--
``(A) any foreign incorporated entity that such head has
determined is an inverted domestic corporation or any
subsidiary of such entity; or
``(B) any joint venture if more than 10 percent of the
joint venture (by vote or value) is owned by a foreign
incorporated entity that such head has determined is an
inverted domestic corporation or any subsidiary of such
entity.
``(2) Subcontracts.--
``(A) In general.--The head of an executive agency shall
include in each contract for the procurement of property or
services awarded by the executive agency with a value in
excess of $10,000,000, other than a contract for exclusively
commercial items, a clause that prohibits the prime
contractor on such contract from--
``(i) awarding a first-tier subcontract with a value
greater than 10 percent of the total value of the prime
contract to an entity or joint venture described in paragraph
(1); or
``(ii) structuring subcontract tiers in a manner designed
to avoid the limitation in paragraph (1) by enabling an
entity or joint venture described in paragraph (1) to perform
more than 10 percent of the total value of the prime contract
as a lower-tier subcontractor.
``(B) Penalties.--The contract clause included in contracts
pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall provide that, in the event
that the prime contractor violates the contract clause--
``(i) the prime contract may be terminated for default; and
``(ii) the matter may be referred to the suspension or
debarment official for the appropriate agency and may be a
basis for suspension or debarment of the prime contractor.
``(b) Inverted Domestic Corporation.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, a foreign
incorporated entity shall be treated as an inverted domestic
corporation if, pursuant to a plan (or a series of related
transactions)--
``(A) the entity completes before, on, or after May 8,
2014, the direct or indirect acquisition of--
``(i) substantially all of the properties held directly or
indirectly by a domestic corporation; or
``(ii) substantially all of the assets of, or substantially
all of the properties constituting a trade or business of, a
domestic partnership; and
``(B) after the acquisition, either--
``(i) more than 50 percent of the stock (by vote or value)
of the entity is held--

``(I) in the case of an acquisition with respect to a
domestic corporation, by former shareholders of the domestic
corporation by reason of holding stock in the domestic
corporation; or
``(II) in the case of an acquisition with respect to a
domestic partnership, by former partners of the domestic
partnership by reason of holding a capital or profits
interest in the domestic partnership; or

``(ii) the management and control of the expanded
affiliated group which includes the entity occurs, directly
or indirectly, primarily within the United States, as
determined pursuant to regulations prescribed by the
Secretary of the Treasury, and such expanded affiliated group
has significant domestic business activities.
``(2) Exception for corporations with substantial business
activities in foreign country of organization.--
``(A) In general.--A foreign incorporated entity described
in paragraph (1) shall not be treated as an inverted domestic
corporation if after the acquisition the expanded affiliated
group which includes the entity has substantial business
activities in the foreign country in which or under the law
of which the entity is created or organized when compared to
the total business activities of such expanded affiliated
group.
``(B) Substantial business activities.--The Secretary of
the Treasury (or the Secretary's delegate) shall establish
regulations for determining whether an affiliated group has
substantial business activities for purposes of subparagraph
(A), except that such regulations may not treat any group as
having substantial business activities if such group would
not be considered to have substantial business activities
under the regulations prescribed under section 7874 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as in effect on May 8, 2014.
``(3) Significant domestic business activities.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(B)(ii), an
expanded affiliated group has significant domestic business
activities if at least 25 percent of--
``(i) the employees of the group are based in the United
States;
``(ii) the employee compensation incurred by the group is
incurred with respect to employees based in the United
States;
``(iii) the assets of the group are located in the United
States; or
``(iv) the income of the group is derived in the United
States.
``(B) Determination.--Determinations pursuant to
subparagraph (A) shall be made in the same manner as such
determinations are made for purposes of determining
substantial business activities under regulations referred to
in paragraph (2) as in effect on May 8, 2014, but applied by
treating all references in such regulations to `foreign
country' and `relevant foreign country' as references to `the
United States'. The Secretary of the Treasury (or the
Secretary's delegate) may issue regulations decreasing the
threshold percent in any of the tests under such regulations
for determining if business activities constitute significant
domestic business activities for purposes of this paragraph.
``(c) Waiver.--
``(1) In general.--The head of an agency may waive
subsection (a) with respect to any

[[Page S3758]]

Federal Government contract under the authority of such head
if the head determines that the waiver is required in the
interest of national security or is necessary for the
efficient or effective administration of Federal or
Federally-funded programs that provide health benefits to
individuals.
``(2) Report to congress.--The head of an agency issuing a
waiver under paragraph (1) shall, not later than 14 days
after issuing such waiver, submit a written notification of
the waiver to the Committees on Armed Services and
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives.
``(d) Applicability.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
this section shall not apply to any contract entered into
before the date of the enactment of this section.
``(2) Task and delivery orders.--This section shall apply
to any task or delivery order issued after the date of the
enactment of this section pursuant to a contract entered into
before, on, or after such date of enactment.
``(3) Scope.--This section applies only to contracts
subject to regulation under the Federal Acquisition
Regulation and the Defense Supplement to the Federal
Acquisition Regulation.
``(e) Definitions and Special Rules.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this section, the terms `expanded
affiliated group', `foreign incorporated entity', `person',
`domestic', and `foreign' have the meaning given those terms
in section 835(c) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6
U.S.C. 395(c)).
``(2) Special rules.--In applying subsection (b) of this
section for purposes of subsection (a) of this section, the
rules described under 835(c)(1) of the Homeland Security Act
of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 395(c)(1)) shall apply.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 2337
the following new item:

``2338. Prohibition on awarding contracts to inverted domestic
corporations.''

(b) Regulations Regarding Management and Control.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury (or the
Secretary's delegate) shall, for purposes of section
2338(b)(1)(B)(ii) of title 10, United States Code, as added
by subsection (a), prescribe regulations for purposes of
determining cases in which the management and control of an
expanded affiliated group is to be treated as occurring,
directly or indirectly, primarily within the United States.
The regulations prescribed under the preceding sentence shall
apply to periods after May 8, 2014.
(2) Executive officers and senior management.--The
regulations prescribed under paragraph (1) shall provide that
the management and control of an expanded affiliated group
shall be treated as occurring, directly or indirectly,
primarily within the United States if substantially all of
the executive officers and senior management of the expanded
affiliated group who exercise day-to-day responsibility for
making decisions involving strategic, financial, and
operational policies of the expanded affiliated group are
based or primarily located within the United States.
Individuals who in fact exercise such day-to-day
responsibilities shall be treated as executive officers and
senior management regardless of their title.
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. McCAIN. 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. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask that Senators wait to speak--which I
will be asking to be in morning business in about 2 or 3 minutes--while
we finish seeing if the modification that may be at the desk is
approved. I ask for their patience for 2 or 3 minutes until we get this
done.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. 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. McCAIN. 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. 1543, as Modified

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
amendment, No. 1543, be modified with the changes at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

At the end of title XI, add the following:

SEC. 1116. COST SAVINGS ENHANCEMENTS.

(a) In General.--Section 4512 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting
``or identification of surplus funds or unnecessary budget
authority'' after ``mismanagement'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or identification''
after ``disclosure''; and
(C) in the matter following paragraph (2), by inserting
``or identification'' after ``disclosure''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) The Inspector General of an agency or other agency
employee designated under subsection (b) shall refer to the
Chief Financial Officer of the agency any potential surplus
funds or unnecessary budget authority identified by an
employee, along with any recommendations of the Inspector
General or other agency employee.
``(d)(1) If the Chief Financial Officer of an agency
determines that rescission of potential surplus funds or
unnecessary budget authority identified by an employee would
not hinder the effectiveness of the agency, except as
provided in subsection (e), the head of the agency shall
transfer the amount of the surplus funds or unnecessary
budget authority from the applicable appropriations account
to the general fund of the Treasury.
``(2) Any amounts transferred under paragraph (1) shall be
deposited in the Treasury and used for deficit reduction,
except that in the case of a fiscal year for which there is
no Federal budget deficit, such amounts shall be used to
reduce the Federal debt (in such manner as the Secretary of
the Treasury considers appropriate).
``(e)(1) The head of an agency may retain not more than 10
percent of amounts to be transferred to the general fund of
the Treasury under subsection (d).
``(2) Amounts retained by the head of an agency under
paragraph (1) may be--
``(A) used for the purpose of paying a cash award under
subsection (a) to 1 or more employees who identified the
surplus funds or unnecessary budget authority; and
``(B) to the extent amounts remain after paying cash awards
under subsection (a), transferred or reprogrammed for use by
the agency, in accordance with any limitation on such a
transfer or reprogramming under any other provision of law.
``(f)(1) The head of each agency shall submit to the
Director of the Office of Personnel Management an annual
report regarding--
``(A) each disclosure of possible fraud, waste, or
mismanagement or identification of potentially surplus funds
or unnecessary budget authority by an employee of the agency
determined by the agency to have merit;
``(B) the total savings achieved through disclosures and
identifications described in subparagraph (A); and
``(C) the number and amount of cash awards by the agency
under subsection (a).
``(2)(A) The head of each agency shall include the
information described in paragraph (1) in each budget request
of the agency submitted to the Office of Management and
Budget as part of the preparation of the budget of the
President submitted to Congress under section 1105(a) of
title 31, United States Code.
``(B) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management
shall submit to the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate, the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives, and the Government Accountability Office an
annual report on Federal cost saving and awards based on the
reports submitted under subparagraph (A).
``(g) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management
shall--
``(1) ensure that the cash award program of each agency
complies with this section; and
``(2) submit to Congress an annual certification indicating
whether the cash award program of each agency complies with
this section.
``(h) Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of
this subsection, and every 3 years thereafter, the
Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to
Congress a report on the operation of the cost savings and
awards program under this section, including any
recommendations for legislative changes.''.
(b) Officers Eligible for Cash Awards.--
(1) In general.--Section 4509 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 4509. Prohibition of cash award to certain officers

``4509. Prohibition of cash award to certain officers.''.

[[Page S3759]]

____________________