[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 91 (Tuesday, June 9, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3905-S3921]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
Amendment No. 1486
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this Chamber is currently having a very
important debate about our national security priorities, including the
authorized funding levels for our Nation's Armed Forces. But I would
like to
[[Page S3906]]
speak just briefly about an element of our national security that is
often overlooked, and that has to do with the interconnection between
our energy resources here in America and global security.
I will start by quoting the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
GEN Martin Dempsey, who said: ``I think we've got to pay more and
particular attention to energy as an instrument of national power.''
Well, I could not agree, in this instance, with General Dempsey more.
So I want to again address a way in which I believe the United States
can utilize our vast domestic energy resources to not only enhance our
economy but also help enhance our national security and help us meet
our strategic objectives around the world and specifically by helping
many of our NATO allies in Europe in this process.
As I mentioned on the floor last week, many of these countries rely
heavily on energy resources from Russia, creating strategic
vulnerability for them as well as for the United States, their treaty
ally. This is not a hypothetical matter because we know Vladimir Putin
has literally turned the spigot off to countries like Ukraine and
threatens to do so to Europe if they happen to disagree with Russian
policy, particularly with regard to its expropriation of Crimea and
Ukraine.
But the United States can use its energy resources to reassure our
allies and partners and to lessen, reduce, at the same time, their
dependence on bad actors like Russia and Iran. So it is as simple as
helping our friends and checking the abuse of power by our adversaries.
Now, while allowing energy exports to some of our allies when their
security is threatened probably sounds like a commonsense notion to a
lot of people, there are some skeptics. One of our colleagues, the
junior Senator from Massachusetts, has suggested that approving crude
oil exports to anybody--including on a limited basis to our allies who
are being coerced and under duress from Vladimir Putin--that somehow
that would result in a tax on consumers at the pump. In other words, he
is arguing that exporting our natural resources around the world would
actually cause gasoline prices to go up.
Well, I am here to say that is a faulty assumption and it is simply
not grounded in fact. It is at odds with the research and leading
opinions of multiple experts, think tank organizations, and officials.
And you know what. It is even at odds with the Obama administration's
leading expert in this field. Here is what Secretary Moniz said on
February 12, 2015, about the effect of crude oil exports on U.S. gas
prices. He said there would be no effect on gas prices. He said: ``And
their [EIA's] conclusion was, probably none to possibly minor decreases
in domestic prices.''
So if you think about it, actually more American supply increases the
world's supply of oil. Indeed, gasoline is already sold around the
world at a global price. So more supply of oil, which is the chief
component of gasoline, would actually increase the supply. Even
according to a recovering lawyer who is not an economist, on a supply-
and-demand basis, with static demand increasing, the supply is actually
going to bring down the price.
The Energy Secretary is not the only one who believes there will
either be no change or actually a downward price to consumers on
gasoline.
After reviewing several studies on this issue, the Government
Accountability Office noted that ``consumer fuel prices, such as
gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel, could decrease as a result of removing
crude oil export restrictions.'' So this is the Government
Accountability Office that said that, actually confirming, essentially,
what Secretary Moniz said; that we would actually see gasoline prices
go down at the pump were we to lift this domestic sanction we have
imposed upon ourselves when it comes to exporting crude.
Another think tank, the Aspen Institute, said it would have
``significant positive and durable effects on [our gross domestic
product], aggregate employment and income.''
The Aspen Institute, just as another example, thinks it would be good
for income, it would be good for jobs, it would be good for our
economy.
So it seems the only people who do not think lifting the ban would be
good are limited to the Halls of Congress or perhaps some of the
lobbyists who raise money scaring people when it comes to the use of
our fossil fuels, particularly oil and gas.
While I think it is important to come and rebut this faulty argument,
the amendment that is pending to the underlying bill is actually much
more narrowly targeted. It simply ensures that we will have a reliable
sense of the energy vulnerabilities of our European partners. In fact,
we are a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and under
article 5, were they to be attacked, all members of the treaty would be
required to come to their assistance. So why in the world would we not
want to reduce their vulnerability to economic hostage-taking?
We also want to get a better understanding of Russia's ability to use
this dependency against our allies in NATO and Europe in general. So my
amendment would allow us to see the big picture when it comes to just
how dependent our allies in the region are on nations that wield their
energy supply as a weapon.
Now, I just want to make clear my amendment would actually not change
any of the current law. It would not change any of the current law. It
simply restates the current authority that the President has in his
discretion to allow crude oil and natural gas exports, if determined to
be consistent with the national interest.
I would say, even though Russia and Europe and NATO are the primary
focus, this is not just limited to NATO. It could include important
allies of ours in the Middle East, like Israel, as well. My amendment
reiterates this existing authority, and it encourages the President to
use it to help reduce the vulnerabilities of our allies in Europe and
around the world when it is determined to be in our national interest.
It does not add to that authority, and it does not constrain it either.
Well, the President just returned from the so-called G7 summit--
representing the leading seven economies of the free world--and here is
what the G7 said about this topic. The G7 leaders said that ``we
reaffirm our support for Ukraine and other vulnerable countries . . .
and reiterate that energy should not be used as a means of political
coercion or as a threat to security.''
So if that is the position of the G7, if the Obama administration
takes the position that lifting the ban on exports of oil will not do
anything to raise the price of gasoline at the pump and could well
reduce it, then I think the Senate would be well advised to support the
amendment I have offered which, again, just restates the current
authority, does not expand it, and then asks the Defense Department and
the intelligence community to do an assessment of how we can better
understand the role our energy assets play as an element of our soft
power and national security.
Our allies are pretty clear-eyed about all this. They recognize that
shrinking their dependence will not be complete or easy. But one goal
this amendment seeks to recognize is that we have allies that are
asking for help that will put them on a path toward less reliance and
will put Russia on notice that they will not be able to hold these
countries hostage to energy.
This is about options, alternatives, and a stable supply on the world
market that are all helped by increased U.S. production and this
renaissance in natural gas and oil that has been brought about thanks
to the great innovation and technology improvements in the private
sector, created here in the United States but benefiting the entire
world.
The G7 leaders noted that the diversification of the world's energy
supply is ``a core element of energy security,'' including a diversity
of ``energy mix[es], energy fuels, sources, and routes.''
So my amendment is based on the idea that we may supplement the
global market, and that ultimately brings about increased diversity in
fuel supply, which benefits everyone.
My amendment is not about limiting the President's authority under
current law. I did not intend to do that. This amendment does not do
it. It is about taking a modest first step toward addressing the
requests, the pleas, in some cases, of our allies and our partners in
an increasingly unpredictable world.
[[Page S3907]]
So I would encourage our colleagues to support this amendment and, in
doing so, take the long-term view of our national security interests as
well as the peace and stability of our most trusted allies and
partners.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. President, if I may withhold that request.
I ask unanimous consent that the time in the quorum call be equally
divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REED. Will the Senator repeat his request?
Mr. CORNYN. I will be glad to restate it. I am asking unanimous
consent that the time in the quorum call be equally divided between the
sides.
Mr. REED. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. 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. 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, what is the parliamentary situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is currently considering H.R. 1735.
Approximately 22 minutes remain on the majority side.
Mr. McCAIN. Twenty-two minutes on the majority side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, and 11 minutes on the minority side.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that such time as the Senator
from Rhode Island may need to conclude the debate be in order and I
have 10 minutes in order before the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REED. Mr. President, we have Senator Stabenow and Senator Durbin
coming, and I believe we have heard that Senator Grassley is also
coming, and with the Senator's 10 minutes, I think that will fill up
the time until the vote at 3 o'clock.
Mr. McCAIN. We have Senator Sessions as well.
Well, let me suggest the absence of a quorum first, and then we will
work it out.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. STABENOW. 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. 1521
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I am here on the floor to speak to the
amendment we will be voting on as it relates to Senator Reed's
amendment.
I first thank both of the leaders of this committee for important
work that is being done. But the amendment in front of us is absolutely
critical for the safety and security of the American people and
certainly for our troops. We all agree--we need to agree--that our
troops deserve more than budget gimmicks. What we have in here are too
many budget gimmicks that do not reflect the commitment we need to have
to our troops and their families.
Further, it does not allow us to fully fund the security needs of the
country. We are going to be having a very important debate after this
legislation on what to do around appropriations, and it is critical
that Senator Reed's amendment be passed so we have the opportunity to
fully fund the full range of security needs of our country--not only in
the Department of Defense, which we all know is very important, but our
border security, cyber security, counterterrorism, police and
firefighter efforts--those on the frontlines. Whom do we think is
called when we dial 911, when there is an emergency of any kind. It is
police officers and firefighters that, unfortunately, without the Reed
amendment, will not receive the kind of support and funding needed to
keep our communities safe.
We need to stop weapons of mass destruction, focus on airport
security. We are on and off airplanes every single week, as are
millions of Americans. We know how critical it is that we be funding
our airport security. We know there are outbreaks, like Ebola and other
infectious diseases and attacks that may come from that, that are not
in the bill in front of us but are critical to the funding of the
national security interests of our families, our communities, and our
country.
Senator Reed has put forward an amendment that would guarantee we
would not only think of security in the context of the Department of
Defense but that we would understand it is throughout the Federal
Government--all of the various services and folks coming together from
border security, cyber security, counterterrorism, local police and
firefighters on the frontline, the ability to stop weapons of mass
destruction, airport security, Ebola protection with the Centers for
Disease Control and Protection, and so much more. The people of the
country understand it is not just about the Department of Defense.
Certainly, we need to make sure that even within the Department of
Defense budget, we are doing more than budget gimmicks. Certainly, our
troops deserve that. But without the amendment that Senator Reed has so
thoughtfully put forward and designed, we will be undercutting critical
parts of national security for our people.
So I strongly urge that we come together on a bipartisan basis. We
talk a lot about border security. We hear a lot about that here. We
certainly understand what is happening in cyber security and the needs
of our country. We could go through all of the other parts of the
Federal budget that impact security and realize that if we aren't
willing to look at security for our families and communities and our
country as a whole, as Senator Reed does, we will be undercutting the
safety and security we all want for our families and communities.
So I strongly support and urge colleagues to come together and vote
for the Reed amendment.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. 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 unanimous consent that the following
Senators be permitted to speak before the vote: Senator Durbin for 8
minutes, Senator Sessions for 8 minutes, Senator McCain for 7 minutes,
and Senator Reed for 7 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Illinois.
For-Profit Colleges and Universities
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we have an industry in America called for-
profit colleges and universities. It is a unique part of America's
private sector--and I use the phrase ``private sector'' with some
caution. These are profitable entities which portray themselves as
colleges and universities. We know their names: the University of
Phoenix, DeVry University, Kaplan University, and--until very
recently--Corinthian, one of the largest for-profit schools. What do
they do? They entice young people to sign up at their for-profit
colleges and universities and promise them they are going to give them
training or education to find a job.
Now, it turns out that as alluring as that is, it doesn't tell the
whole story. The real story about the for-profit college industry can
be told with three numbers:
Ten. Ten percent of all high school graduates go to these for-profit
colleges and universities.
Twenty. Twenty percent of all the Federal aid to education goes to
these for-profit colleges and universities. About $35 billion a year
flows into these schools. If it were a separate Federal agency, it
would be the ninth largest Federal agency in Washington, DC--$35
billion.
But the key number we should remember is 44. Forty-four percent of
all
[[Page S3908]]
the student loan defaults in America are students at for-profit
colleges and universities.
How can that be--10 percent of the students and 44 percent of the
loan defaults.
First, they overcharge their students; secondly, when the students
get deeply in debt, many of them drop out; and, third, those who end up
graduating find out many times the diploma is worthless. That is what
has happened.
Back in December of 2013, I wrote to the Department of Education
asking them to investigate Corinthian Colleges. There was an article in
the Huffington Post that drew my attention to it, as well as the
actions by the California attorney general, Kamala Harris. It turned
out that Corinthian was lying. It was lying to the students about
whether they would ever end up getting a job, and it was lying to the
Federal Government about their performance and how well they were
doing. They were caught in their lie. As a consequence, the Department
of Education started threatening Corinthian Colleges for defrauding
taxpayers and the government in their official reports. Things went
from bad to worse. Corinthian Colleges declared bankruptcy.
What happens when one of these for-profit colleges and universities
declares bankruptcy? Well, the students many times are left high and
dry. They have nothing, no school to go to. Oh, wait a minute. They
don't have ``nothing.'' They have something. They have debt--a debt
that they carry away from these failed schools.
Well, we have a provision in the law which says if your school goes
bankrupt, you might be able to walk away from your student debt.
The Department of Education made an announcement yesterday, which I
support, that says that they are going to work with these students who
have been defrauded by Corinthian Colleges and misled into believing
this college was worth their time and money. Some of these students
will get a chance to be relieved from their college debt.
It is a good thing because student loan debt is not like a lot of
other debts. It is not like the money you borrowed for a car. It is not
like the money you borrowed for a home. Student loan debts are not
discharged in bankruptcy. You have them for a lifetime. If you make a
bad decision when you are 19 years old and sign up for $18,000 a year
at Corinthian Colleges or at ITT Tech, you have it until you pay it
off. We find that many of these schools garnish Social Security checks.
They will stay with you for a lifetime. So now the Department of
Education is working on this, trying to do the right thing by these
Corinthian students.
I have been in touch with Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education, whom I
respect. I told him this is, unfortunately, an early indication of an
industry that is on hard times. The stock prices of these for-profit
schools are in deep trouble across the board. People are finally
realizing there is too much fraudulent activity going on at these
institutions.
Who are the losers? It is not just the students with debts from these
worthless schools but taxpayers. We are the ones who send these
billions of dollars to these so-called private companies that have
their CEOs take home millions of dollars while the kids are getting
little or no education. They are the losers.
What should we do about it? I think we ought to be a lot tougher when
it comes to the for-profit colleges and universities--holding them
accountable for what they are doing to these young people and their
families, holding them accountable for what they have done to
taxpayers.
Do you know how much money we sent to Corinthian after it became
clear they were lying to us? It was $1 billion dollars--$1 billion
dollars, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer. There are schools like that,
unfortunately, across this country.
The last point I will make on this is that, speaking to the Secretary
of Education and others, the real losers many times are also veterans--
veterans. The GI bill was offered to veterans after they served our
country for a chance to get an education, training, and to make a life.
They used it, sadly, at worthless for-profit colleges and universities,
and they have used up a once-in-a-lifetime chance to build a future.
They are left high and dry, not with a student-loan debt but with an
empty promise that this education is going to lead to something.
I am going to continue to work with my colleagues, including Senator
Blumenthal of Connecticut, to change that and to protect our veterans.
But I am also going to continue to work on these for-profit colleges
and universities. America can do better. These schools with 10 percent
of the students, 20 percent of the Federal aid to education, and 44
percent of the student loan defaults have to be held accountable.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask that I be notified after 7
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be so notified.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I start by saying Commander Pilcher is a
fabulous naval officer. He is doing great work in our office as we deal
with the defense issues in this country, and he has been of real
assistance to us. I have to say that I am proud of him. He reflects
well on the Navy and the people who defend this country every day.
Amendment No. 1521
Mr. President, what is happening now is unfortunate. On the Defense
bill that came out of the Armed Services Committee, of which I am a
member, that ranking member Senator Reed and Senator McCain worked on,
we have had virtually no significant disagreements except this one.
What our Democratic colleagues are insisting upon, driven by the
President and political interests, is that defense gets no increase in
funding unless nondefense gets an increase in funding over the budget
cap established by the Budget Control Act.
In 2011, we passed the Budget Control Act. A part of that was the
sequester, and it was not something that was never intended to occur,
as some of my colleagues have claimed. It was in the law. They always
say: Well, we never intended this to occur. Not so--we passed it into
law. It said there would be a commission and the commission could look
at entitlements and other things with the hope that we would come up
with some way to save more money and put us on a sound financial path.
They said if they did not come up with that agreement, then what we
put in the law would take effect as limits on defense and nondefense
discretionary spending.
Under the Budget Control Act, next year will be the last year it
holds those limits. It will be basically flat spending again this year,
but it will increase thereafter at 2.5 percent a year. We are not
destroying nondefense discretionary spending.
Remember, this legislation was passed in 2011. That is the year
President Obama said: Iraq is settled; we are going to pull all the
troops out. Senator McCain pleaded with him not to do that. He said we
could have danger in the future. He warned that if we did that, chaos
could occur. But no, the President, to comply with his campaign
promise, said we were pulling them all out.
Unfortunately, Senator McCain was correct. We have ISIS. Iraq is in
turmoil. The Syrian turmoil has gotten worse. Since 2011, Russia
invaded Crimea. Yemen is in trouble. Iran is hardening its position
with regard to nuclear weapons. Libya is experiencing serious problems.
All of this, I suggest, was the result of an unwise, unclear, and
weak foreign policy. Every one of those situations could be better
today had we had clearer leadership and people that listened to someone
such as Chairman McCain, who knew what he was talking about. But that
is all water over the dam at this point.
What do we do now? We have to have more money for defense. I am a
budget hawk. I was ranking member on the budget when we did the 2011
cap and limit on spending. I defended it consistently. But I have to
tell you, colleagues, both the President, our Democratic Members, and
Republican Members believe we are going to have to increase our defense
budget.
What is the problem? The problem is our colleagues are saying: Well,
you cannot increase defense unless you increase nondefense by the same
amount.
[[Page S3909]]
How silly is that? Imagine, you have a tight budget at home, and a tree
falls on your house. Emergency--you have to go out and find money,
borrow money to fix the roof. Does that mean now that you are going to
spend twice as much on your vacation? Are you going to go out and buy a
new car that you did not plan to buy because you had to spend more
money to fix the house?
How irresponsible is that? It is unbelievable to me. This is exactly
what has occurred. They are demanding that we will not get a defense
budget until we give more money for the nondefense account and spend
above what we agreed to spend in the Budget Control Act. Remember, it
will soon begin to grow at 2.5 percent a year. We have saved money
through the Budget Control Act. It was a successful thing. We do not
need to destroy it and give it up.
I want to say that I wish we had not had these dangerous conditions
erupt throughout much of the world. I wish it had not happened. Senator
McCain warned that the foreign policy we were executing was going to
result in just this kind of problem. But it has resulted, and we are
going to have to defend our country. These are overseas contingency
operations that we will be funding. If we do this, it does not mean we
have to increase equally nondefense spending.
Let me just repeat the bad news I think most of us know. Every penny
increased on the defense budget is borrowed money. If we increase
nondefense spending, that is going to be borrowed, too. We do not need
to borrow more money than necessary. Just because we have to spend more
on defense does not mean we have to spend more on nondefense.
That is all I am saying. I think it is a mistake for our colleagues
on the Democratic side to try to use the security of America as a
leverage to demand more nondefense spending.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from
Alabama for his very important remarks.
I rise to oppose this amendment. I do so with the great respect that
I have for my friend and colleague, the ranking member. The Senator
from Rhode Island and I have worked together very closely on every
aspect of this legislation. We agree on the overwhelming majority of
its provisions. As I have said before, this legislation is better
because of the good work and cooperation that I have enjoyed with my
friend from Rhode Island. I respect his knowledge of and experience on
national defense issues, and I agree that we must fix sequestration. I
also agree with him that our national security does not depend solely
on the Department of Defense. But unfortunately, I disagree with my
friend on the amendment before us.
Since the Budget Control Act became law, threats to this country have
only increased and increased dramatically. Today, the United States
faces the most diverse and complex array of crises around the world
since the end of World War II. In the face of these global challenges,
this amendment would prevent the Department from using $38 billion of
vital budget authority through overseas contingency operations, known
as OCO.
Despite the claims that OCO is a slush fund, the entirety of the OCO
budget goes towards real defense requirements. With this budget
authority, we are supporting our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq,
operations against ISIL, and broader counterterrorism efforts. The
Armed Services Committee has also funded a portion of operation and
maintenance activities in OCO. These activities are directly tied to
supporting our operating forces. They pay for training, transportation,
fuel, and maintenance of our combat equipment. These budgetary lines
pay for the readiness of our Active Forces and directly support our
ongoing military operations.
It would be a disaster if this $38 billion is removed from what we
are trying to achieve in this legislation. That is why it is not
surprising the President himself has requested OCO funding for the
exact same activities. The NDAA funded $38 billion of operation and
maintenance with OCO money because the President had requested OCO
funding for these activities already. They were the most closely linked
to the government's growing number of overseas contingencies in which
we are engaged.
To reiterate, I agree with Senator Reed that we must absolutely fix
the Budget Control Act. Finding a bipartisan solution to do so remains
my top priority. But in absence of such an agreement, I refuse to hold
funding for the military hostage, leaving defense at sequestration
levels of spending that every single military service chief has
testified would put more American lives at risk of those serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States. We cannot do that. We cannot add
greater danger to the lives of the men and women who are serving in the
military. This amendment would do that.
The NDAA is a policy bill. It cannot solve the Budget Control Act. It
deals only with defense issues. It does not spend a dollar. It provides
the Department of Defense and our men and women in uniform with the
authorities and support they need to defend the Nation.
The NDAA is a reform bill--a reform bill, my friends--that will
enable our military to rise to the challenge of a more dangerous world.
It tackles acquisition reform, military retirement reform, personnel
reform, even commissary reform, and headquarters and management reform.
The list goes on and on. The Armed Services Committee identified $10
billion of excess and unnecessary spending from the President's defense
budget request, and we are reinvesting it in military capabilities for
our warfighters and reforms that can yield long-term savings for the
Department of Defense. We did all of this while upholding our
commitments to our servicemembers, retirees, and their families.
Members of the Armed Services Committee understand the need to fix
the Budget Control Act. That is why we included a provision in the bill
that would authorize the transfer of the additional $38 billion from
OCO to the base budget in the event that legislation is enacted that
increases the budget caps on discretionary defense and nondefense
spending in proportionately equal amounts. This was the product of a
bipartisan compromise, and it was the most we could responsibly do in
the committee to recognize the need for a broader fiscal agreement
without denying funding for our military.
Every one of us has a constitutional duty to provide for the common
defense, and as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, that is my
highest responsibility. Funding our national defense with OCO is not
ideal, but it is far better than the alternative, which is to deny the
men and women in uniform the $38 billion they desperately need now. The
President requested $38 billion, and our military leaders have said
they cannot succeed without that $38 billion.
Regrettably, that is what this amendment would do, and I oppose it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, first, let me say with great respect how I
appreciate the collaboration and cooperation of the chairman on so much
of the bill where we worked together, but this is an issue that I feel
very strongly about.
Let me be very clear about what this amendment does. First, it
recognizes the need--as the President did in his budget submission--for
adequate resources for our Department of Defense. But what it does is
it says that the additional money above the President's request for
OCO--the $38 billion which was taken from the base and put into this
overseas account--would be essentially fenced or set aside until we
resolve the Budget Control Act, and I think we have to begin that
process immediately.
Senator McCain has said quite sincerely and quite persistently that
we have to fix sequestration. Every uniformed service chief who came
before our committee said we have to fix sequestration and the budget
control caps. The reality is that this legislation does not do that.
Indeed, my amendment does not do it, but it points us in that direction
and gives us a strong incentive to fix the BCA and to do what all of
our defense leaders have asked us to do for the welfare and safekeeping
of our troops and forces in the field.
The President recognizes this need. His budget is virtually identical
to the
[[Page S3910]]
top-line number we are talking about today. But what he also recognized
is that we had to put this money into the base budget of the Department
of Defense, not into the OCO account.
OCO was created because of our contingency operations overseas in
Afghanistan and Iraq. It was created to fund those unpredictable year-
by-year needs that arise when you have forces in conflict and in
combat. It was not designed to be a fund that would take care of long-
term, routine demands of the Department of Defense.
Interestingly enough, in 2008 we had 187,000 troops deployed in
Afghanistan and Iraq. If we look at the OCO number for that year, we
were spending approximately $1 million per troop--all the costs, such
as the fuel, the ammunition, and their own safekeeping. Today, we have
9,930 troops deployed in these combat zones. Yet, if we look at the
same ratio we are asking for in this bill, it is about $9 million per
individual soldier, sailor, marine, and airman. That shows us that this
fund has gone way beyond its intent. It has become an escape valve from
the Budget Control Act just for the Department of Defense.
It is important to emphasize that our defense is not just the
Department of Defense. Our national security rests on a strong Homeland
Security Department that protects our borders. It rests on our Border
Patrol, which is part of Homeland Security. It rests on the Coast
Guard, which patrols our waters, the Justice Department, and the FBI.
We had an incident just a few days ago in Massachusetts where an FBI
agent and a Massachusetts police officer confronted an alleged
terrorist. It wasn't military forces, it was the local police force and
FBI agents who were protecting our neighborhoods and communities. Those
functions will not be adequately funded if we get on this path for OCO.
In fact, that is my greatest concern. If this were a 1-year, temporary
fix, we might be able to justify it, but what we are seeing is a
pathway that will have us taking more from OCO every year, and there
will be more interesting and more remote uses of OCO funds.
Unfortunately, that is the way it tends to be around here. You go where
the money is, and right now the money is in OCO.
I think we should step back and do what the chairman said. We have to
fix it. And he is committed to fixing it, but we have to begin now. We
have to make the case now. We can't simply sit back and say we will
take it up later. And that is at the heart of this.
The other issue here is very clear: OCO is not a perfect fix for the
Department of Defense. As the Chief of Staff of the Army said, it has
limits, it has restrictions, and it is funded for 1 year, but it is
there, and they will take the money. We know that. But it is our duty
and responsibility to have a more thoughtful, long-term approach, and
in doing so, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It does
not take away the resources. It simply says that these resources will
be there once we fix the Budget Control Act, and that is what I hear
everyone in this Chamber--practically everyone--saying every day: We
will fix it. We will fix it. When we do, this money will already be
authorized.
I am convinced that unless we stand up right now and say--hopefully
with one voice--in a formal way that we have to get on the task of
fixing the Budget Control Act, days will pass, weeks will pass, and
months will pass to the detriment of our country, to the detriment of
our military forces, and ultimately we will find ourselves, both in
terms of national security and a whole range of programs, in a very bad
position.
I ask that all of my colleagues consider this amendment and give it
support.
With that, I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I believe the vote on my amendment is in order at this
time, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
Under the previous order, the question occurs on agreeing to
amendment No. 1521, offered by the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio),
and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 51, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 205 Leg.]
YEAS--46
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--51
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kirk
Lankford
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
NOT VOTING--3
Cruz
Rubio
Vitter
The amendment (No. 1521) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be temporarily set aside so that Senator Feinstein may offer
amendment No. 1889 and that amendment No. 1889 be set aside so that
Senator Fischer may offer amendment No. 1825.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from California.
Amendment No. 1889 to Amendment No. 1463
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I call up the McCain-Feinstein-Reed-
Collins amendment No. 1889.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], for Mr.
McCain, proposes an amendment numbered 1889 to amendment No.
1463.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 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 reaffirm the prohibition on torture)
At the end of subtitle D of title X, add the following:
SEC. 1040. REAFFIRMATION OF THE PROHIBITION ON TORTURE.
(a) Limitation on Interrogation Techniques to Those in the
Army Field Manual.--
(1) Army field manual 2-22.3 defined.--In this subsection,
the term ``Army Field Manual 2-22.3'' means the Army Field
Manual 2-22.3 entitled ``Human Intelligence Collector
Operations'' in effect on the date of the enactment of this
Act or any similar successor Army Field Manual.
(2) Restriction.--
(A) In general.--An individual described in subparagraph
(B) shall not be subjected to any interrogation technique or
approach, or any treatment related to interrogation, that is
not authorized by and listed in the Army Field Manual 2-22.3.
(B) Individual described.--An individual described in this
subparagraph is an individual who is--
(i) in the custody or under the effective control of an
officer, employee, or other agent of the United States
Government; or
(ii) detained within a facility owned, operated, or
controlled by a department or agency of the United States, in
any armed conflict.
(3) Implementation.--Interrogation techniques, approaches,
and treatments described in Army Field Manual 2-22.3 shall be
implemented strictly in accord with the principles,
processes, conditions, and limitations prescribed by Army
Field Manual 2-22.3.
(4) Agencies other than the department of defense.--If a
process required by Army Field Manual 2-22.3, such as a
requirement of approval by a specified Department of Defense
official, is inapposite to a department or an agency other
than the Department of Defense, the head of such department
or
[[Page S3911]]
agency shall ensure that a process that is substantially
equivalent to the process prescribed by Army Field Manual 2-
22.3 for the Department of Defense is utilized by all
officers, employees, or other agents of such department or
agency.
(5) Interrogation by federal law enforcement.--Nothing in
this subsection shall preclude an officer, employee, or other
agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or other Federal
law enforcement agency from continuing to use authorized,
non-coercive techniques of interrogation that are designed to
elicit voluntary statements and do not involve the use of
force, threats, or promises.
(6) Update of the army field manual.--
(A) Requirement to update.--
(i) In general.--Not later than one year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, and once every three years
thereafter, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with
the Attorney General, the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, and the Director of National Intelligence,
shall complete a thorough review of Army Field Manual 2-22.3,
and revise Army Field Manual 2-22.3, as necessary to ensure
that Army Field Manual 2-22.3 complies with the legal
obligations of the United States and reflects current,
evidence-based, best practices for interrogation that are
designed to elicit reliable and voluntary statements and do
not involve the use or threat of force.
(ii) Availability to the public.--Army Field Manual 2-22.3
shall remain available to the public and any revisions to the
Army Field Manual 2-22.3 adopted by the Secretary of Defense
shall be made available to the public 30 days prior to the
date the revisions take effect.
(B) Report on best practices of interrogations.--
(i) Requirement for report.--Not later than 120 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the interagency body
established pursuant to Executive Order 13491 (commonly known
as the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group) shall submit
to the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National
Intelligence, the Attorney General, and other appropriate
officials a report on current, evidence-based, best practices
for interrogation that are designed to elicit reliable and
voluntary statements and do not involve the use of force.
(ii) Recommendations.--The report required by clause (i)
may include recommendations for revisions to Army Field
Manual 2-22.3 based on the body of research commissioned by
the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group.
(iii) Availability to the public.--Not later than 30 days
after the report required by clause (i) is submitted such
report shall be made available to the public.
(b) International Committee of the Red Cross Access to
Detainees.--
(1) Requirement.--The head of any department or agency of
the United States Government shall provide the International
Committee of the Red Cross with notification of, and prompt
access to, any individual detained in any armed conflict in
the custody or under the effective control of an officer,
employee, contractor, subcontractor, or other agent of the
United States Government or detained within a facility owned,
operated, or effectively controlled by a department, agency,
contractor, or subcontractor of the United States Government,
consistent with Department of Defense regulations and
policies.
(2) Construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed--
(A) to create or otherwise imply the authority to detain;
or
(B) to limit or otherwise affect any other individual
rights or state obligations which may arise under United
States law or international agreements to which the United
States is a party, including the Geneva Conventions, or to
state all of the situations under which notification to and
access for the International Committee of the Red Cross is
required or allowed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Amendment No. 1825 to Amendment No. 1463
(Purpose: To authorize appropriations for national security aspects of
the Merchant Marine for fiscal years 2016 and 2017, and for other
purposes)
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1825.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nebraska [Mrs. Fischer] proposes an
amendment numbered 1825 to amendment No. 1463.
Mrs. FISCHER. 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 printed in the Record of June 8, 2015, under ``Text
of Amendments.'')
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise to speak about Senate amendment
No. 1825, the Maritime Administration Enhancement Act, which would
reauthorize the Maritime Administration, or MARAD, for fiscal years
2016 and 2017. MARAD will be and traditionally has been added to the
National Defense Authorization Act on the Senate floor.
MARAD strengthens our national security through its numerous programs
to maintain a U.S. Merchant Marine fleet. Under the bipartisan
amendment, MARAD will be authorized at $380 million, which is similar
to the levels authorized in the House NDAA. This bipartisan agreement
will authorize MARAD spending above current authorized levels, as
requested by the White House, while providing support to MARAD's
economic and national defense programs.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I want to speak on my amendment but
not call it up at this moment. It is amendment No. 1578. The purpose of
the amendment is to create an unbiased military justice system. I
believe the Senate needs to vote on this amendment.
Over the last few years, Congress has forced the military to make
incremental changes to address the crisis of sexual assault. After two
decades of complete failure and lip service to zero tolerance, the
military now says, essentially: Trust us. We have got it this time.
They spin the data, hoping nobody will dig below the surface of their
top lines, because when you do, you will find the assault rate is
exactly where it was in 2010.
We see an average of 52 new cases every day. Three out of four
servicemembers who are survivors still don't think it is worth the risk
of coming forward to report these crimes committed against them. One in
seven victims was actually assaulted by someone in their chain of
command. In 60 percent of cases, the survivor says a unit leader or
supervisor is responsible for sexual harassment or gender
discrimination. So it is no surprise that one in three survivors
believes reporting would hurt their career.
For those who do report, they are more likely than not to experience
retaliation. Despite the much touted reform that made retaliation a
crime, the DOD has made zero progress on improving the 62-percent
retaliation rate we had in 2012. So in 2012, 62 percent of those who
reported a crime against them were retaliated against for doing so. In
2014, again, 62 percent were retaliated against.
Human Rights Watch looked into these figures and into the stories,
and they found the DOD could not provide a single example from the last
year where disciplinary action was actually taken against someone for
retaliation. A sexual assault survivor is 12 times more likely to
suffer retaliation than see their offender get convicted of sexual
assault.
In my close review of 107 cases from 2013 from our four largest
military bases--one for each service--I found that nearly half of those
who did move forward to report in an unrestricted report, half of them
withdrew from their case during the first year.
So we can talk all we want about reporting, reporting, but if half of
those who report withdraw during the year of their prosecution, it
shows there is no faith in the system. Survivors do not have faith in
the current system. Under any metric, the system remains plagued with
distrust and does not provide fair and just process that survivors
deserve.
Simply put, the military has not held up to the standard posed by
General Dempsey 1 year ago when he said the Pentagon was on the clock.
I urge my colleagues to hold the military to this higher standard.
Let us put these decisions into the hands of trained military
prosecutors. Enough is enough with the spin, with the excuses, and with
false promises. We have to do the right thing and we have to act.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I rise to speak about an amendment--
amendment No. 1628--to the Defense Authorization Act. This is an
amendment I
[[Page S3912]]
have submitted with Senator Peters, and it has strong bipartisan
support.
This is about the threat of tunnels--tunnels used by terrorists. We
saw those tunnels being used in the 2014 conflict that Israel had with
Hamas. Israel found more than 30 terror tunnels that had been dug by
terrorists to infiltrate and attack Israel.
The Israeli military said these tunnels were intended to carry out
attacks, such as abductions of Israeli citizens and soldiers,
infiltrations into Israeli communities, mass murders and hostage-taking
scenarios.
In one disturbing attack in July of 2014, Hamas terrorists used one
of these terror tunnels to sneak into Israel and then attack and kill
five Israeli soldiers.
This is a picture of one of these terror tunnels. You can imagine, if
terrorists can use a tunnel to come into your country, the feeling of
fear that can create in the civilian population.
Unfortunately, terror tunnels are not a new problem. In 2006,
terrorists used tunnels to capture Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. They
used tunnels to take Gilad back to Gaza and held him captive for 5
years. Two other soldiers were killed in this same attack where these
terror tunnels were used.
Again, this issue of terror tunnels is not unique to the conflict the
Israeli people have been subjected to. In fact, one of Israel's primary
objectives in Operation Protective Edge last year was to destroy these
terror tunnels that posed unacceptable risk to the Israelis and to
their national security. That is why Israel has devoted so much
attention to this problem and how to destroy these terror tunnels.
But not only are terror tunnels a leading security concern for the
Government of Israel, tunnels are being used by terrorists in Syria and
in Iraq. According to a public report yesterday, ISIS used several
dozen tunnel bombs in Syria and used tunnels to help take the Iraqi
city of Ramadi. On March 11, ISIS reportedly detonated a tunnel bomb
under an Iraqi Army headquarters, killing an estimated 22 people. On
March 15, a second tunnel bomb was reportedly used to attack Iraqi
security forces.
Terror tunnels can also be used to threaten U.S. Embassies and
forward-deployed U.S. military personnel. In addition, drug trafficking
organizations and international criminal organizations continue to
construct tunnels on our southern border in order to illegally move
people, drugs, and anything else they think will advantage them into
the United States. Drug cartels are exploiting vulnerabilities on our
border. While this undoubtedly affects border communities and border
States, it has consequences far beyond the border States.
In my home State of New Hampshire, heroin is killing people. It is a
public health epidemic. I have spoken to law enforcement, first
responders, firefighters, and public safety officials, and we have seen
a dramatic increase in the number of people dying in my State.
According to a recent DEA report and drug control experts, heroin is
most commonly being brought into the United States via the southwest
border.
In many places on our border with Mexico, we have fences.
Unfortunately, these criminals and their syndicates--by the way, we
have heard from the commander of Southern Command, and he believes
these networks could be used by terrorists if they wanted to infiltrate
our country. Unfortunately, they are being dug on our southern border.
This is a picture of a tunnel built on our southern border that is
used to smuggle drugs, smuggle people--smuggle anything criminals and
other bad people want to move into our country.
In a 2-day period alone in April, two tunnels were discovered beneath
the California-Mexico border. Again, these tunnels are often used to
smuggle almost anything you can think of into this country, drugs being
the most prominent thing smuggled in. According to public reports,
dozens of smuggling tunnels have been discovered on our southern
borders since 2006.
The amendment I have submitted to the Defense authorization, along
with my colleague, Senator Peters from Michigan, is an amendment that
builds on a provision already in the Defense authorization that I had
included in section 1272. Our amendment promotes and authorizes greater
cooperation between Israel and the United States to counter terror
tunnels in Israel.
If we work with close allies such as Israel to develop better
capabilities to detect, map, and neutralize tunnels, not only can we
help defend Israel and Israel defend itself against terrorist groups
such as Hamas and Hezbollah, but we can also use the capabilities we
develop together to better protect our own border, our own U.S.
Embassies, and our forward-deployed U.S. troops.
My amendment specifically highlights the tunnel threat on our
southern border. It calls on the administration to use the anti-
tunneling capabilities developed to help Israel to better protect the
United States, our people, our interests, and our border. In short,
this amendment will help Israel, our closest and most reliable ally in
the Middle East. It will help us defeat the use of terror tunnels. It
will better equip officials on our southern border to find and shut
down tunnels that are being used to smuggle drugs and that can be used
to smuggle other dangerous items into the United States of America by
these criminal syndicates.
Again, the commander of our Southern Command said he believes this
network can also be used by terrorists.
Not surprisingly, this effort and this amendment have received strong
bipartisan support. I thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle who have sponsored this amendment. This is a commonsense
amendment, and I hope my colleagues, when it is offered for a vote on
the Senate floor, will support this amendment so that we can work with
the Israeli Government, that we can share our understanding of how to
stop these terror tunnels and we can deploy that same technology on our
southern borders to keep our country safe.
Mr. President, 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. 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.
Amendments Nos. 1485, 1510, 1520, 1538, 1579, 1622, 1791, 1677, 1701,
1733, 1739, 1744, 1781, and 1796 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
and agreed to en bloc: No. 1485, Hoeven; No. 1510, Heller; No. 1520,
Rounds; No. 1538, Wicker; No. 1579, Ernst; No. 1622, Moran; No. 1791,
Rubio; No. 1677, Udall; No. 1701, Wyden; No. 1733, Stabenow; No. 1739,
McCaskill; No. 1744, Feinstein; No. 1781, Heitkamp; and No. 1796,
Cardin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are called up and agreed to en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 1485, 1510, 1520, 1538, 1579, 1622, 1791, 1677,
1701, 1733, 1739, 1744, 1781, and 1796) agreed to en bloc are as
follows:
amendment no. 1485
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on the nuclear force
improvement program of the Air Force)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. 1637. SENSE OF SENATE ON THE NUCLEAR FORCE IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM OF THE AIR FORCE.
(a) Findings.--The Senates makes the following findings:
(1) On February 6, 2014, Air Force Global Strike Command
(AFGSC) initiated a force improvement program for the
Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) force designed to
improve mission effectiveness, strengthen culture and morale,
and identify areas in need of investment by soliciting input
from airmen performing ICBM operations.
(2) The ICBM force improvement program generated more than
300 recommendations to strengthen ICBM operations and served
as a model for subsequent force improvement programs in other
mission areas, such as bomber operations and sustainment.
(3) On May 28, 2014, as part of the nuclear force
improvement program, the Air Force announced it would make
immediate improvements in the nuclear mission of the Air
Force, including enhancing career opportunities for airmen in
the nuclear career field, ensuring training activities
focused on performing the mission in the field, reforming the
personnel reliability program, establishing special pay rates
for positions in the
[[Page S3913]]
nuclear career field, and creating a new service medal for
nuclear deterrence operations.
(4) Chief of Staff of the Air Force Mark Welsh has said
that, as part of the nuclear force improvement program, the
Air Force will increase nuclear-manning levels and strengthen
professional development for the members of the Air Force
supporting the nuclear mission of the Air Force in order ``to
address shortfalls and offer our airmen more stable work
schedule and better quality of life''.
(5) Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James, in
recognition of the importance of the nuclear mission of the
Air Force, proposed elevating the grade of the commander of
the Air Force Global Strike Command from lieutenant general
to general, and on March 30, 2015, the Senate confirmed a
general as commander of that command.
(6) The Air Force redirected more than $160,000,000 in
fiscal year 2014 to alleviate urgent, near-term shortfalls
within the nuclear mission of the Air Force as part of the
nuclear force improvement program.
(7) The Air Force plans to spend more than $200,000,000 on
the nuclear force improvement program in fiscal year 2015,
and requested more than $130,000,000 for the program for
fiscal year 2016.
(8) Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said on November 14,
2014, that ``[t]he nuclear mission plays a critical role in
ensuring the Nation's safety. No other enterprise we have is
more important''.
(9) Secretary Hagel also said that the budget for the
nuclear mission of the Air Force should increase by 10
percent over a five-year period.
(10) Section 1652 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck''
McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2015 (Public Law 113-201; 128 Stat. 3654; 10 U.S.C. 491 note)
declares it the policy of the United States ``to ensure that
the members of the Armed Forces who operate the nuclear
deterrent of the United States have the training, resources,
and national support required to execute the critical
national security mission of the members''.
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) the nuclear mission of the Air Force should be a top
priority for the Department of the Air Force and for
Congress;
(2) the members of the Air Force who operate and maintain
the Nation's nuclear deterrent perform work that is vital to
the security of the United States;
(3) the nuclear force improvement program of the Air Force
has made significant near-term improvements for the members
of the Air Force in the nuclear career field of the Air
Force;
(4) Congress should support long-term investments in the
Air Force nuclear enterprise that sustain the progress made
under the nuclear force improvement program;
(5) the Air Force should--
(A) regularly inform Congress on the progress being made
under the nuclear force improvement program and its efforts
to strengthen the nuclear enterprise; and
(B) make Congress aware of any additional actions that
should be taken to optimize performance of the nuclear
mission of the Air Force and maximize the strength of the
United States strategic deterrent; and
(6) future budgets for the Air Force should reflect the
importance of the nuclear mission of the Air Force and the
need to provide members of the Air Force assigned to the
nuclear mission the best possible support and quality of
life.
amendment no. 1510
(Purpose: To require a report on the interoperability between
electronic health records systems of the Department of Defense and the
Department of Veterans Affairs)
At the end of subtitle C of title VII, add the following:
SEC. 738. REPORT ON INTEROPERABILITY BETWEEN ELECTRONIC
HEALTH RECORDS SYSTEMS OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
AND DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.
Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs shall jointly submit to Congress a report
that sets forth a timeline with milestones for achieving
interoperability between the electronic health records
systems of the Department of Defense and the Department of
Veterans Affairs.
Amendment No. 1520
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to develop a
comprehensive plan to support civil authorities in response to cyber
attacks by foreign powers)
At the appropriate place in subtitle B of title XVI, insert
the following:
SEC. ___. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TO
SUPPORT CIVIL AUTHORITIES IN RESPONSE TO CYBER
ATTACKS BY FOREIGN POWERS.
(a) Plan Required.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
develop a comprehensive plan for the United States Cyber
Command to support civil authorities in responding to cyber
attacks by foreign powers (as defined in section 101 of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.
1801)) against the United States or a United States person.
(2) Elements.--The plan required by paragraph (1) shall
include the following:
(A) A plan for internal Department of Defense collective
training activities that are integrated with exercises
conducted with other agencies and State and local
governments.
(B) Plans for coordination with the heads of other Federal
agencies and State and local governments pursuant to the
exercises required under subparagraph (A).
(C) Note of any historical frameworks that are used, if
any, in the formulation of the plan required by paragraph
(1), such as Operation Noble Eagle.
(D) Descriptions of the roles, responsibilities, and
expectations of Federal, State, and local authorities as the
Secretary understands them.
(E) Descriptions of the roles, responsibilities, and
expectations of the active components and reserve components
of the Armed Forces.
(F) A description of such legislative and administrative
action as may be necessary to carry out the plan required by
paragraph (1).
(b) Comptroller General of the United States Review of
Plan.--The Comptroller General of the United States shall
review the plan developed under subsection (a)(1).
Amendment No. 1538
(Purpose: To allow for improvements to the United States Merchant
Marine Academy)
At the end of subtitle G of title X, add the following:
SEC. 1085. MELVILLE HALL OF THE UNITED STATES MERCHANT MARINE
ACADEMY.
(a) Gift to the Merchant Marine Academy.--The Maritime
Administrator may accept a gift of money from the Foundation
under section 51315 of title 46, United States Code, for the
purpose of renovating Melville Hall on the campus of the
United States Merchant Marine Academy.
(b) Covered Gifts.--A gift described in this subsection is
a gift under subsection (a) that the Maritime Administrator
determines exceeds the sum of--
(1) the minimum amount that is sufficient to ensure the
renovation of Melville Hall in accordance with the capital
improvement plan of the United States Merchant Marine Academy
that was in effect on the date of enactment of this Act; and
(2) 25 percent of the amount described in paragraph (1).
(c) Operation Contracts.--Subject to subsection (d), in the
case that the Maritime Administrator accepts a gift of money
described in subsection (b), the Maritime Administrator may
enter into a contract with the Foundation for the operation
of Melville Hall to make available facilities for, among
other possible uses, official academy functions, third-party
catering functions, and industry events and conferences.
(d) Contract Terms.--The contract described in subsection
(c) shall be for such period and on such terms as the
Maritime Administrator considers appropriate, including a
provision, mutually agreeable to the Maritime Administrator
and the Foundation, that--
(1) requires the Foundation--
(A) at the expense solely of the Foundation through the
term of the contract to maintain Melville Hall in a condition
that is as good as or better than the condition Melville Hall
was in on the later of--
(i) the date that the renovation of Melville Hall was
completed; or
(ii) the date that the Foundation accepted Melville Hall
after it was tendered to the Foundation by the Maritime
Administrator; and
(B) to deposit all proceeds from the operation of Melville
Hall, after expenses necessary for the operation and
maintenance of Melville Hall, into the account of the
Regimental Affairs Non-Appropriated Fund Instrumentality or
successor entity, to be used solely for the morale and
welfare of the cadets of the United States Merchant Marine
Academy; and
(2) prohibits the use of Melville Hall as lodging or an
office by any person for more than 4 days in any calendar
year other than--
(A) by the United States; or
(B) for the administration and operation of Melville Hall.
(e) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Contract.--The term ``contract'' includes any
modification, extension, or renewal of the contract.
(2) Foundation.--In this section, the term ``Foundation''
means the United States Merchant Marine Academy Alumni
Association and Foundation, Inc.
(f) Rules of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be
construed under section 3105 of title 41, United States Code,
as requiring the Maritime Administrator to award a contract
for the operation of Melville Hall to the Foundation.
amendment no. 1579
(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress that the Secretary of
Defense should maintain and enhance robust military intelligence
support to force protection for installations, facilities, and
personnel of the Department of Defense and the family members of such
personnel)
At the end of subtitle E of title XVI, add the following:
[[Page S3914]]
SEC. 1664. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON MAINTAINING AND ENHANCING
MILITARY INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT TO FORCE
PROTECTION FOR INSTALLATIONS, FACILITIES, AND
PERSONNEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Maintaining appropriate force protection for deployed
personnel of the Department of Defense and their families is
a priority for Congress.
(2) Installations, facilities, and personnel of the
Department in Europe face a rising threat from international
terrorist groups operating in Europe, from individuals
inspired by such groups, and from those traversing through
Europe to join or return from fighting the terrorist
organization known as the ``Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant'' (ISIL) in Iraq and Syria.
(3) Robust military intelligence support to force
protection is necessary to detect and thwart potential
terrorist plots that, if successful, would have strategic
consequences for the United States and the allies of the
United States in Europe.
(4) Military intelligence support is also important for
detecting and addressing early indicators and warnings of
aggression and assertive military action by Russia,
particularly action by Russia to destabilize Europe with
hybrid or asymmetric warfare.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the Secretary of Defense should maintain and enhance robust
military intelligence support to force protection for
installations, facilities, and personnel of the Department of
Defense and the family members of such personnel, in Europe
and worldwide.
amendment no. 1622
(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress on reviewing and considering
findings and recommendations of the Council of Governors regarding
cyber capabilities of the Armed Forces)
At the end of subtitle B of title XVI, add the following:
SEC. 1628. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON REVIEWING AND CONSIDERING
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF COUNCIL OF
GOVERNORS ON CYBER CAPABILITIES OF THE ARMED
FORCES.
It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense
should review and consider any findings and recommendations
of the Council of Governors pertaining to cyber mission force
requirements and any proposed reductions in and
synchronization of the cyber capabilities of active or
reserve components of the Armed Forces.
amendment no. 1791
(Purpose: To authorize a land exchange at Navy Outlying Field, Naval
Air Station, Whiting Field, Florida)
At the end of subtitle C of title XXVIII, add the
following:
SEC. 2822. LAND EXCHANGE, NAVY OUTLYING LANDING FIELD, NAVAL
AIR STATION, WHITING FIELD, FLORIDA.
(a) Land Exchange Authorized.--The Secretary of the Navy
may convey to Escambia County, Florida (in this section
referred to as the ``County''), all right, title, and
interest of the United States in and to a parcel of real
property, including any improvements thereon, containing Navy
Outlying Landing Field Site 8 in Escambia County associated
with Naval Air Station, Whiting Field, Milton, Florida.
(b) Land to Be Acquired.--In exchange for the property
described in subsection (a), the County shall convey to the
Secretary of the Navy land and improvements thereon in Santa
Rosa County, Florida, that is acceptable to the Secretary and
suitable for use as a Navy outlying landing field to replace
Navy Outlying Landing Field Site 8.
(c) Payment of Costs of Conveyance.--
(1) Payment required.--The Secretary of the Navy shall
require the County to cover costs to be incurred by the
Secretary, or to reimburse the Secretary for such costs
incurred by the Secretary, to carry out the land exchange
under this section, including survey costs, costs for
environmental documentation, other administrative costs
related to the land exchange, and all costs associated with
relocation of activities and facilities from Navy Outlying
Landing Field Site 8 to the replacement location. If amounts
are collected from the County in advance of the Secretary
incurring the actual costs, and the amount collected exceeds
the costs actually incurred by the Secretary to carry out the
land exchange, the Secretary shall refund the excess amount
to the County.
(2) Treatment of amounts received.--Amounts received as
reimbursement under paragraph (1) shall be credited to the
fund or account that was used to cover those costs incurred
by the Secretary in carrying out the land exchange. Amounts
so credited shall be merged with amounts in such fund or
account, and shall be available for the same purposes, and
subject to the same conditions and limitations, as amounts in
such fund or account.
(d) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the property to be exchanged under this
section shall be determined by surveys satisfactory to the
Secretary of the Navy.
(e) Conveyance Agreement.--The exchange of real property
under this section shall be accomplished using a quit claim
deed or other legal instrument and upon terms and conditions
mutually satisfactory to the Secretary of the Navy and the
County, including such additional terms and conditions as the
Secretary considers appropriate to protect the interests of
the United States.
Amendment No. 1677
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to submit information to
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs relating to the exposure of members
of the Armed Forces to airborne hazards and open burn pits)
At the end of subtitle C of title VII, add the following:
SEC. 738. SUBMITTAL OF INFORMATION TO SECRETARY OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS RELATING TO EXPOSURE TO AIRBORNE
HAZARDS AND OPEN BURN PITS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, and periodically thereafter, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs such information in the possession of the
Secretary of Defense as the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
considers necessary to supplement and support--
(1) the development of information to be included in the
Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry established by
the Department of Veterans Affairs under section 201 of the
Dignified Burial and Other Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act
of 2012 (Public Law 112-260; 38 U.S.C. 527 note); and
(2) research and development activities conducted by the
Department of Veterans Affairs to explore the potential
health risks of exposure by members of the Armed Forces to
environmental factors in Iraq and Afghanistan, in particular
the connection of such exposure to respiratory illnesses such
as chronic cough, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,
constrictive bronchiolitis, and pulmonary fibrosis.
(b) Inclusion of Certain Information.--The Secretary of
Defense shall include in the information submitted to the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs under subsection (a)
information on any research and surveillance efforts
conducted by the Department of Defense to evaluate the
incidence and prevalence of respiratory illnesses among
members of the Armed Forces who were exposed to open burn
pits while deployed overseas.
Amendment No. 1701
(Purpose: To improve the provisions relating to adoption of retired
military working dogs)
On page 117, insert between lines 12 and 13, the following:
(b) Location of Retirement.--Subsection (f) of such section
is further amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as
subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively;
(2) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``If the Secretary'';
(3) in paragraph (1), as designated by paragraph (2) of
this subsection--
(A) by striking ``, and no suitable adoption is available
at the military facility where the dog is location,''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), as designated by paragraph (1) of
this subsection, by inserting ``within the United States''
after ``to another location''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph (2):
``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply if a United States
citizen living abroad adopts the dog at the time of
retirement.''.
Amendment No. 1733
(Purpose: To require a report on plans for the use and availability of
airfields in the United States for homeland defense missions)
At the end of subtitle F of title X, add the following:
SEC. 1065. REPORT ON PLANS FOR THE USE OF DOMESTIC AIRFIELDS
FOR HOMELAND DEFENSE AND DISASTER RESPONSE.
(a) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense
shall, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland
Security and the Secretary of Transportation, submit to the
appropriate committees of Congress a report setting forth an
assessment of the plans for airfields in the United States
that are required to support homeland defense and local
disaster response missions.
(b) Considerations.--The report shall include the following
items:
(1) The criteria used to determine the capabilities and
locations of airfields in the United States needed to support
safe operations of military aircraft in the execution of
homeland defense and local disaster response missions.
(2) A description of the processes and procedures in place
to ensure that contingency plans for the use of airfields in
the United States that support both military and civilian air
operations are coordinated among the Department of Defense
and other Federal agencies with jurisdiction over those
airfields.
(3) An assessment of the impact, if any, to logistics and
resource planning as a result of the reduction of certain
capabilities of airfields in the United States that support
both military and civilian air operations.
(4) A review of the existing agreements and authorities
between the Commander of the United States Northern Command
and the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
that allow for consultation on decisions that impact the
capabilities of airfields in the United States that support
both military and civilian air operations.
(c) Form.--The report under subsection (a) shall be
submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified
annex.
[[Page S3915]]
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Appropriate committees of congress.--The term
``appropriate committees of Congress'' means--
(A) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on
Homeland Security and Government Affairs, and the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate; and
(B) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on
Homeland Security, and the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives.
(2) Capabilities of airfields.--The term ``capabilities of
airfields'' means the length and width of runways, taxiways,
and aprons, the operation of navigation aids and lighting,
the operation of fuel storage, distribution, and refueling
systems, and the availability of air traffic control
services.
(3) Airfields in the united states that support both
military and civilian air operations.--The term ``airfields
in the United States that support both military and civilian
air operations'' means the following:
(A) Airports that are designated as joint use facilities
pursuant to section 47175 of title 49, United States Code, in
which both the military and civil aviation have shared use of
the airfield.
(B) Airports used by the military that have a permanent
military aviation presence at the airport pursuant to a
memorandum of agreement or tenant lease with the airport
owner that is in effect on the date of the enactment of this
Act.
Amendment No. 1739
(Purpose: To require a conflict of interest certification for Inspector
General investigations relating to whistleblower retaliation)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CONFLICT OF INTEREST CERTIFICATION FOR
INVESTIGATIONS RELATING TO WHISTLEBLOWER
RETALIATION.
(a) Definition.--In this section--
(1) the term ``covered employee'' means a whistleblower who
is an employee of the Department of Defense or a military
department, or an employee of a contractor, subcontractor,
grantee, or subgrantee thereof;
(2) the term ``covered investigation'' means an
investigation carried out by an Inspector General of a
military department or the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense relating to--
(A) a retaliatory personnel action taken against a member
of the Armed Forces under section 1034 of title 10, United
States Code; or
(B) any retaliatory action taken against a covered
employee; and
(3) the term ``military department'' means each of the
departments described in section 104 of title 5, United
States Code.
(b) Certification Requirement.--
(1) In general.--Each investigator involved in a covered
investigation shall submit to the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense or the Inspector General of the
military department, as applicable, a certification that
there was no conflict of interest between the investigator,
any witness involved in the covered investigation, and the
covered employee or member of the Armed Forces, as
applicable, during the conduct of the covered investigation.
(2) Standardized form.--The Inspector General of the
Department of Defense shall develop a standardized form to be
used by each investigator to submit the certification
required under paragraph (1).
(3) Investigative file.--Each certification submitted under
paragraph (1) shall be included in the file of the applicable
covered investigation.
amendment no. 1744
(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out
certain major medical facility projects for which appropriations were
made for fiscal year 2015)
At the end of subtitle G of title X, add the following:
SEC. 1085. AUTHORIZATION OF CERTAIN MAJOR MEDICAL FACILITY
PROJECTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
FOR WHICH AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATED.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations
Act, 2015 (Public Law 113-235) appropriated to the Department
of Veterans Affairs--
(A) $35,000,000 to make seismic corrections to Building 205
in the West Los Angeles Medical Center of the Department in
Los Angeles, California, which, according to the Department,
is a building that is designated as having an exceptionally
high risk of sustaining substantial damage or collapsing
during an earthquake;
(B) $101,900,000 to replace the community living center and
mental health facilities of the Department in Long Beach,
California, which, according to the Department, are
designated as having an exceptionally high risk of sustaining
substantial damage or collapsing during an earthquake;
(C) $187,500,000 to replace the existing spinal cord injury
clinic of the Department in San Diego, California, which,
according to the Department, is designated as having an
extremely high risk of sustaining major damage during an
earthquake; and
(D) $122,400,000 to make renovations to address substantial
safety and compliance issues at the medical center of the
Department in Canandaigua, New York, and for the construction
of a new clinic and community living center at such medical
center.
(2) The Department is unable to obligate or expend the
amounts described in paragraph (1) because it lacks an
explicit authorization by an Act of Congress pursuant to
section 8104(a)(2) of title 38, United States Code, to carry
out the major medical facility projects described in such
paragraph.
(3) Among the major medical facility projects described in
paragraph (1), three are critical seismic safety projects in
California.
(4) Every day that the critical seismic safety projects
described in paragraph (3) are delayed puts the lives of
veterans and employees of the Department at risk.
(5) According to the United States Geological Survey--
(A) California has a 99 percent chance or greater of
experiencing an earthquake of magnitude 6.7 or greater in the
next 30 years;
(B) even earthquakes of less severity than magnitude 6.7
can cause life threatening damage to seismically unsafe
buildings; and
(C) in California, earthquakes of magnitude 6.0 or greater
occur on average once every 1.2 years.
(b) Authorization.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may
carry out the major medical facility projects of the
Department of Veterans Affairs specified in the explanatory
statement accompanying the Consolidated and Further
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Public Law 113-235) at
the locations and in the amounts specified in such
explanatory statement, including by obligating and expending
such amounts.
amendment no. 1781
(Purpose: To improve the report on the strategy to protect United
States national security interests in the Arctic region)
On page 528, line 14, insert after ``Arctic region'' the
following: ``, as well as among the Armed Forces''.
On page 528, line 23, insert after ``ture,'' the following:
``communications and domain awareness,''.
On page 529, line 5, insert before the period at the end
the following: ``, including by exploring opportunities for
sharing installations and maintenance facilities''.
AMENDMENT NO. 1796
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on finding efficiencies
within the working capital fund activities of the Department of
Defense)
At the end of subtitle A of title X, add the following:
SEC. 1005. SENSE OF SENATE ON FINDING EFFICIENCIES WITHIN THE
WORKING CAPITAL FUND ACTIVITIES OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Defense
should, through the military departments, continue to find
efficiencies within the working capital fund activities of
the Department of Defense with specific emphasis on
optimizing the existing workload plans of such activities to
ensure a strong organic industrial base workforce.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I defer to my colleague from North
Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Amendment No. 1569
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I call for regular order with respect to
amendment No. 1569.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
Amendment No. 1921 to Amendment No. 1569
(Purpose: To improve cybersecurity in the United States through
enhanced sharing of information about cybersecurity threats)
Mr. BURR. I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Burr] proposes an
amendment numbered 1921 to amendment No. 1569.
Mr. BURR. 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 printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. BURR. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ayotte). The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I rise in support of the national
defense authorization bill and would point out to my colleagues that
this is a piece of legislation which for half a century has enjoyed
bipartisan support--during Republican administrations, Democratic
administrations, and during times of majority on the Democratic side
and on the Republican side.
Regrettably, last year this Chamber did not take up the NDAA until
December--months after it had been approved in committee. I commend
Senator Levin, the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, for
reporting the bill out of his committee during Democratic majorities,
and if he had his way, we would have taken up the bill much earlier.
I also want to commend Senator McCain, our current Republican
chairman of the Armed Services Committee
[[Page S3916]]
for again, in a timely way, reporting this bipartisan bill. And then I
think commendation is due to the new leadership of this Senate for
taking up this bill in a timely fashion in June rather than waiting
until December.
It has been said by the distinguished minority leader that taking up
this bill is a waste of time because the President has said he would
veto this bill. It is curious that he would say so because this bill
funds national security at the amount requested by the President of the
United States. I think to people out there listening in the public, it
is curious the President would say ``I am going to veto a bill'' that
actually funds security items at the administration's requested level.
I would also point out to my colleagues that this is not the first
time the President has issued a veto threat. This happened on the Iran
nuclear negotiations bill, where at first the President said: If the
House and Senate send me such a bill, I will veto it. But the more we
talked about it and the more we brought the American people into the
discussion and the more the light was shown on the issue and the
American public opinion began to be known, the more popular the idea
became in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
At the end of the day, it was unanimous or virtually unanimous in the
Foreign Relations Committee that the Senate and the House should be
heard on the issue of any negotiations this administration has, as the
Secretary of State might have with the Iranian leadership. At the end
of the day, it passed overwhelmingly, and the President actually
changed his mind. Having said he would veto that Iranian nuclear bill,
he changed his mind and sent word that he would, in fact, sign it.
I hope the same thing will happen in this situation. I hope the
President will rescind his veto threat and, after we have worked our
will and after this bill has gone over to a conference committee with
the House of Representatives and we have come up with a compromise
between the House and the Senate, I hope the President will, in fact,
change his mind and change his position as he did on the Iranian bill
and sign it. I do not think it is a waste of time. I think it is
critical that we do this.
It is often that we start off on a partisan basis. I have the highest
regard for the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. He and I
served together in the House of Representatives. It has been my
privilege to serve on the committee with the distinguished ranking
member for some time. I think he would acknowledge that we started off
the defense markup with all Republicans saying they were going to vote
for it and with all Democrats saying they would be a ``no'' vote. But
the more we got into that issue and the more Senator McCain began to
work with Members on both sides of the aisle and amendments were
offered and debate was held, that opposition began to melt away.
At the end of the day, on this bill that is before us today, there
were eight Democrats who voted aye in the committee and only four
Democrats who voted no. As I recall, all of the Republicans on the
committee voted yes. It was an overwhelmingly bipartisan support of
something that started off dividing us, Republicans versus Democrats.
It is important that we continue to do that. The focus should be on
our national security priorities. The focus should be on the troops.
This bill funds the troops in a very meaningful and a very reform-
oriented way. This is necessary under the current times.
I want to quote from an earlier Armed Services hearing we had,
wherein Director of National Intelligence James Clapper warned the
committee. I will quote the Director of National Intelligence. He said
that ``unpredictable instability is the new normal.'' ``Unpredictable
instability is the new normal.''
He pointed out that ``last year was the most lethal year for global
terrorism in 45 years.'' It so happens that we have only been keeping
statistics on the lethal degree of terrorism for 45 years. In the
recorded 45-year history of keeping tabs on this, this is the most
lethal year, this past year--tough times, dangerous times.
This was underscored by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger,
when he testified at a hearing before the committee earlier this year.
He said that ``the United States has not faced a more diverse and
complex array of crises since the end of the Second World War.''
This is a dangerous world. This is a dangerous time. We have a bill
that addresses these times, and I think we should move forward with it.
The Obama administration may be unwilling to admit that the world is
less safe, but there is no denying the extraordinary challenges. I
think Members on both sides of the aisle would acknowledge this: ISIS
or ISIL, the newly resurgent and aggressive Russia and what they have
done in invading Crimea and eastern Ukraine, the havoc across the
Middle East in nations such as Yemen and Syria, nations that are
collapsing into chaos. These are serious times.
Yet our President said, on the European Continent yesterday, that
``we don't have a complete strategy'' for dealing with ISIS in Iraq.
This is not a time to block resources our military needs. As a matter
of fact, it is a time for us to act as Americans and not as partisans.
There are several reasons why passing this bill this month should not
be controversial:
First, it would authorize the same amount of funding as requested by
the President.
Second, it contains one of the most substantive defense reforms we
have seen in years. It would adopt $10 billion worth of efficiencies
that would pave the way for long-term savings at the Department of
Defense.
Third, the bill champions greater efficiency by reducing bureaucracy
at the Pentagon and reforming the weapons acquisition system. Just
because we need to spend more money for defense does not mean we need
to spend more money to hire bureaucrats and staffers at the Pentagon.
Fourth, it is very important to point out the reforms in this bill
make sure that the men and women who fight for our country, including
those who are wounded or who have retired, have the quality of life,
health care and support they deserve.
Fifth, this bill would modernize the military retirement system.
Something that has been recommended to us by experts in the military
and by retired military people. It would not only extend benefits to
more servicemembers, but also give them more value. It would give our
servicemembers more choice in their retirement system. Too many of our
members are being excluded from the current system. Maintaining our
All-Volunteer Force requires taking care of those who have chosen to
serve.
Let me give a big shout-out and thank-you to Senator Mazie Hirono, my
ranking member on the Seapower Subcommittee. We have worked closely in
the Seapower mark of this legislation. As a matter of fact, I regret
that Senator Hirono and I could not do our two speeches on this bill
together. That was our intent, for me to speak as chair and for her to
speak as ranking member because we have cooperated so much in our
Seapower title.
Our title in the bill addresses shortfalls in the Navy's ability to
meet requirements. We have 30 ships and our Navy's amphibious fleet is
much smaller than the Marine Corps tells us is required. Last year, the
Chief of Naval Operations, ADM Jonathan Greenert, said that more like
50 ships are required if we want to do everything the military is being
asked to do. We need to address this and at least move from 30 ships
toward that goal of 50 that Admiral Greenert suggested.
This year's NDAA would authorize $199 million for an additional
American-class amphibious assault ship as well as $80 million in
research and development. This sends a powerful message to anyone who
would be our adversary. These ships are known as the ``Swiss Army
Knives'' of the sea because they are so versatile and because they
respond to so many of the threats, including counterterrorism, piracy,
combat missions, and humanitarian crises.
We also recognize the need to modernize our submarine fleet. Again,
thank you to Senator Hirono, the ranking member, for working with us on
this. The Seapower Subcommittee is preparing for the eventual
construction of the Ohio-class replacement submarine program. This is
an expensive
[[Page S3917]]
program. It is necessary. It is expensive. We are about the business of
providing the necessary funds to mitigate higher costs for the
submarine program on our shipbuilding budget.
I am so pleased we addressed these Seapower needs. In addition, we do
our best to meet the needs of the National Guard, to support a modern
fleet for the Army, for mental health services for our troops and
veterans, and the protection for our servicemembers' religious
convictions. It is a comprehensive reform bill that ought to have the
same sort of bipartisan support we have had for last 50 years.
We need a bill, in conclusion, that takes an honest look at our
current challenges and implements necessary reforms. I am pleased to
say this bill does so, and I hope we move forward, get past this moment
of suiting up in a partisan fashion, and send this bill with an
overwhelming vote from the U.S. Senate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Youth Unemployment
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, it sometimes happens that issues of
enormous consequence seem to be ignored and do not get anywhere near
the discussion it requires. One such issue which needs to be put on the
table that needs to be dealt with and needs to be resolved is the
crisis of youth unemployment in America, in general, and specifically
among Black and Hispanic youth.
Let me provide you with some new information that I recently received
from the Economic Policy Institute, one of the important nonpartisan
economic think tanks in our country. What this information tells us is
that the level of youth unemployment in this country has reached tragic
dimensions, and it is especially tragic for the African-American and
Hispanic communities.
The Economic Policy Institute recently analyzed census data on
unemployment among young people--those people who are either jobless,
those people who have given up looking for work or those people who are
working part time when they want to work full time; in other words,
what real unemployment is about.
This is what they found. They found that during April of 2014 to
March of 2015, the average real unemployment rate for Black high school
graduates, ages 17 to 20, was 51.3 percent. Let me repeat. Over the
last year, from April 2014 to March of 2015, the average real
unemployment rate for Black high school graduates was 51.3 percent. The
jobless figure for Hispanics in the same age group was 36.1 percent,
and for young White high school graduates the number was 33.8 percent.
This is an issue which cannot be ignored. An entire generation of
young people who are trying to get their lives together, trying to earn
some money, and trying to become independent are unable to find work.
This is an issue which must be dealt with. Even young Americans with a
college degree are finding it increasingly difficult to get a job. The
real unemployment rate for young Black college graduates between the
ages of 21 and 24 was 23 percent, the figure for Hispanics was 22.4
percent, and the figure for Whites was 12.9 percent.
Today in America, over 5\1/2\ million young people have either
dropped out of high school or have graduated high school and do not
have jobs. It is no great secret that without work, without education,
and without hope, people get into trouble, and the result is--and this
is not unrelated--that tragically in America today we have more people
in jail than any other country on Earth, including China, an
authoritarian, Communist country with a population four times our size.
How does that happen? How is it that this great Nation has more people
in jail than any other country and far more than a Communist,
authoritarian society in China, a country that is four times our size?
Today, the United States is 5 percent of the world's population; yet,
we have 25 percent of the world's prisoners. Incredibly, over 3 percent
of our country's population is under some form of correctional control.
According to the NAACP, from 1980 to 2008, the number of people
incarcerated in America quadrupled from roughly half a million to 2.3
million people. If current trends continue, the estimate is that one in
three Black males born today can expect to spend time in prison during
his lifetime.
This is an unspeakable tragedy. This is an issue which has to be put
on the table and has to be discussed. And this crisis is not just a
destruction of human life, it is also a very costly issue to the
taxpayers of our country. In America, we now spend nearly $200 billion
a year on public safety, including $70 billion on correctional
facilities each and every year.
It is beyond comprehension that we as a nation have not focused
attention on the fact that millions of our young people are unable to
find work or begin their careers in a productive economy. This is an
issue which we must deal with--and I know I speak for the Senator from
Michigan--and we will make sure this country pays attention to and
deals with this issue.
Let me just say that it makes a lot more sense to invest in jobs and
education for our young people than to spend incredible amounts of
money on jails and incarceration. Let's give these kids a shot at life.
Let's give them a chance. Let's not lock them up.
The time is long overdue for us to start investing in our young
people, to help them get the jobs they need, the education they need,
and the job training they need so they can be part of the American
middle class.
The answer to unemployment and poverty is not and cannot be the mass
incarceration of young Americans of all races. It is time to bring hope
and economic opportunity to communities throughout this country.
Last week, I introduced legislation with Congressman John Conyers and
Senator Debbie Stabenow to provide $5\1/2\ billion to immediately begin
funding States and localities throughout this country to employ 1
million young people between the ages of 16 and 24 and provide job
training to hundreds of thousands of young Americans.
Some people may say: Well, this is an expensive proposition.
I guarantee that this investment will save money because it costs a
heck of a lot more money to put people in jail than to provide them
with jobs and education. We will save lives and create taxpayers and a
middle class rather than having more and more people in jail.
I just wanted to mention that this is an issue which has to be
discussed. I look forward to working with the cosponsor of this
legislation, Senator Stabenow, and we will bring attention to this
issue.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, before the Senator from Vermont
leaves, I have to say that I am very proud to be a partner with him on
this legislation and how critically important it is that we give young
people the opportunity to have a job. On the last immigration bill, we
were able to add dollars to the bill, which helped to create funding
for young people. Youth unemployment is a huge issue, and we need to
give them a path forward on jobs, hope, and economic opportunity. I
again thank the Senator from Vermont.
Madam President, I also have to say I am very disappointed that
Senator Reed's amendment was not successful. Unfortunately, it was
voted down today on a partisan vote. We all know there are way too many
budget gimmicks in this authorization, as important as it is, and what
we ought to be doing is making sure all of the security needs of our
families--not just those at the Department of Defense but those in
other parts of the budget have the adequate resources they need so
their families are truly safe.
Highway Trust Fund
I wish to speak specifically about another piece of legislation which
will help to ensure our safety, and that is economic safety and
security. This is something which also deserves our time and attention,
and time is running out right now. We have 52 days before the highway
trust fund will be empty, shut down; 52 days and we have not yet done
even one hearing in the Finance Committee. I respectfully ask that our
chairman, for whom I have tremendous respect, have hearings and
discussions so we can work together and talk about how we are going to
fund this bill. We have not yet seen legislation on the floor that will
allow us
[[Page S3918]]
to move forward on a long-term funding bill for economic security.
Our Republican colleagues need to join with us and provide leadership
on this issue which affects millions of jobs and, frankly, affects
every single American. There was a time when Republicans were the
leaders of building our roads, bridges, airports, railroads, and all of
our infrastructure, and that came in the form of President Eisenhower,
who said in 1952 that ``a network of modern roads is as necessary to
defense as it is to our national economy and our personal safety.''
We are on the floor talking about legislation to authorize moving
forward to support our troops and making sure we are authorizing
programs for our national defense. Yet, in 1952 President Eisenhower
said that ``a network of modern roads is as necessary to our defense as
it is to our national economy and our own personal safety.'' But in
only 52 days, there will be zero in our Nation's highway trust fund.
By the late 1950s, our interstate highways were responsible for 31
percent of the annual economic growth of our country--an economic
engine of our country. Thanks to President Eisenhower's leadership, our
roads in the mid-20th century were the envy of the world. Now we see
other countries that want to be like America--a global economic power--
and they are rushing to invest in their roads, bridges, airports,
railroads, and other infrastructure, countries such as China and
Brazil.
China is taking 9 percent of their GDP and using it to invest in
jobs, and those things that will allow them to create jobs and be a
world economic power. They are wooing businesses there because they
have the most modern infrastructure, and frankly, we are playing
catchup. There is absolutely no reason that should be happening.
Our European competitors spend twice what we do on transportation and
funding for critical roads and bridges and other transportation needs.
The Chinese Government spends four times what we are spending right
now.
The World Economic Forum's ``Global Competitiveness Report'' for 2014
and 2015 ranks America 16th in the quality of roads. We are one spot
behind Luxembourg and one spot just ahead of Croatia. Can you imagine?
Yay. We are just ahead of Croatia in investing in the future in
transportation technology and safety for our roads, bridges, and
airports--all of those things which create economic security and, in
the words of President Eisenhower, national security.
The World Economic Forum has its own rankings. In 2002, America had
the fifth best transportation system in the world. In their most recent
rankings, we were 24th.
The American Society of Civil Engineers' most recent report card for
America's infrastructure--our transportation, roads and bridges--gave
us a D on our roads. I don't think any of us would be happy if our
children brought home a report card that had a D on it; yet, that is
what we are now seeing in Congress. The report card that we are
presenting to the American people has a D on it. It says that 42
percent of major urban highways are congested and that it costs over
$101 billion in wasted time and fuel every year.
One of my constituents recently told me that he hit a pothole on the
way to the Detroit Metro Airport, and he had to replace all four tires
on his car. He actually went through seven tires in 1 year. That is a
lot of money; that is a lot of tires. He went through seven tires in 1
year because of the bad roads in Michigan.
The average Michigan resident spends $357 a year on repairing the
damage to their automobiles caused by broken roads. That is more than
twice the amount that average people pay in taxes to go to improving
our roads and bridges. It is more than twice what it would take to
actually fix our roads and bridges and actually be able to move
forward. It is not fair. It is not fair to neglect responsibility to
maintain our Nation's basic roads and bridges and other infrastructure
and let the American people pay for that neglect, which is exactly what
is happening.
We can't expect our workers and our companies to compete in the 21st-
century global marketplace if they are forced to use 20th-century roads
and bridges, and we are on our way to the 19th century. Some places are
so crumbled up, we are going from pavement back to the dirt underneath
it. It is crazy, and there is no excuse for it.
Every time we pass a short-term patch that goes 1 or 2 or 6 months
down the road, we let our workers, businesses, and our families down.
Congress needs to step up. We are ready, and we are looking for
Republican partners to join with us in a long-term solution. The
majority needs to step up.
We have 52 days and counting until the highway trust fund is empty--
at zero. We shouldn't see the majority kick the can down the road again
or come up with some kind of short-term suggestion or crazy things such
as cutting people's pensions to pay for roads and bridges. Together, we
need to do what the American people expect us to do and sit down and do
what has been done over the course of history in the United States:
Fund a long-term transportation bill that moves us forward in our
economy, jobs, and creates the kind of competitive edge we have
traditionally had in the United States.
A grade of D on roads is an embarrassment. We need our Republican
majority to step up with us, because we are waiting. We are anxious to
put together a long-term strategy on funding for our roads and bridges.
This is pretty basic when we look at the responsibilities that Congress
has on behalf of the American people--maintaining airports, railroads,
short rail for agriculture, as well as our long distance rail, roads,
bridges, and all of the other things that comprise the basic format. We
are 52 days away from the highway trust fund going empty.
Let's get busy. It is time to make sure we are doing the right thing
in moving the country forward.
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. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning
business for up to 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Gaspee Days
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I am here on the floor today to
celebrate a significant event in our country's history and in Rhode
Island. Every student of American history knows the story of the Boston
Tea Party. We all learned about Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty
dumping chests of tea into Boston Harbor to protest British taxation
without representation.
What many students don't know is that down in Rhode Island, more than
a year earlier, a group of Rhode Island patriots made an even harsher
challenge to the British Empire one dark night in June of 1772. I am
here to tell their story.
The episode began when amid growing tensions with colonists, King
George III moved the HMS Gaspee, an armed British customs vessel, into
Rhode Island's Narragansett Bay. The Gaspee and its captain, Lieutenant
William Dudingston, were known for seizing cargo and flagging down
ships only to harass, humiliate, and interrogate the colonials. As Nick
Bunker, author of the book ``An Empire on the Edge'' wrote, this
harassment did not sit well with Rhode Islanders, who had grown
accustomed to a level of freedom unique in that time. ``Even by
American standards, Rhode Island was an extreme case of popular
government.''
The chapter in his book in which he describes this is entitled ``
`This Dark Affair': The Gaspee Incident.'' Bunker went on to say: ``Out
of all the colonies, Rhode Island was the one where the ocean entered
most deeply into the lives of the people.'' And we wanted it free.
In July of 1663, over 100 years before the Gaspee incident, King
Charles II had granted a royal charter establishing the colony of Rhode
Island and Providence Plantations in New England. And the charter said
it was ``to hold forth a lively experiment . . . that a most
flourishing civil state may stand and best be maintained with full
liberty in religious concernments.''
The ``lively experiment'' in Rhode Island blazed the path for
American freedom of religion, a fundamental right of
[[Page S3919]]
our great Nation. In Rhode Island, what were then considered radical
ideologies of freedom ran very deep. A century later, William
Dudingston would learn just how deep, as he went about harassing
American vessels and confiscating their cargo. ``The British Armed
Forces have come to regard almost every local merchant as a smuggler
and a cheat,'' Bunker wrote. Rhode Islanders were fed up with the
abuse. Something was bound to give.
In March of 1772, local seamen and traders led by John Brown signed a
petition against the Gaspee. They brought it to Rhode Island Chief
Justice Stephen Hopkins, a political leader in Providence and a
relentless advocate for liberty.
Nick Bunker wrote:
For Brown and Hopkins, the only law they recognized was
theirs, laid down by their assembly and their local courts.
They saw no role in Rhode Island for the English laws that
gave the navy its authority.
This is in 1772. Chief Justice Hopkins provided a legal opinion
saying that British officers needed to present their orders and
commission to Rhode Island's Governor before entering local waters.
Well, Dudingston refused and, indeed, threatened to hang ``any man who
tried to oppose the Gaspee.''
So the fuse was lit. It all came to a head on June 9, 1772. Rhode
Island Captain Benjamin Lindsey was sailing to Providence from Newport
in his ship, the Hannah. He was accosted and ordered to yield for
inspection by the Gaspee. Well, Captain Lindsey refused. He raced up
Narragansett Bay, despite warning shots fired at the Hannah.
The Gaspee gave chase and Captain Lindsey, who knew the waters of
Rhode Island far better than did Dudingston, steered his ship north
toward Pawtuxet Cove in Warwick, right over the shallow waters of
Namquid Point. There, the lighter Hannah shot over the shallows, but
the heavier Gaspee ran aground and stuck firm.
The British ship and her crew were caught, stranded in a falling
tide. They would need to wait many hours for a rising tied to free them
again. According to Nick Bunker, as night fell, the Gaspee crew turned
in, leaving only one seaman on the deck. Spotting an irresponsible
opportunity, Captain Lindsey sailed on to Providence. There he enlisted
the help of John Brown, the respected merchant and statesman who had
led that petition against the Gaspee back in March.
Brown was from one of the most prominent families in the city. He
ultimately helped found what we know today as Brown University. Brown
and Lindsey rallied a group of Rhode Island patriots at Sabin's Tavern,
down in what is now the East Side of Providence, along the waterfront.
Refreshments, no doubt, were served. Refreshed or not, the group
resolved to end the Gaspee's menace in Rhode Island waters. That night,
those raiders, led by what Nick Bunker called the ``maritime elite of
Providence,'' set out with blackened faces, in long boots, and rowed
down the bay with their oars muffled to avoid detection. They made
their way to the stranded Gaspee and surrounded it.
As Daniel Harrington recounted in a recent op-ed that he wrote in the
Providence Journal, ``Capt. Abraham Whipple spoke first for the Rhode
Islanders, summoning Dudingston: `I am sheriff of Kent county,
[expletive]. I have a warrant to apprehend you, [expletive]; so
surrender, [expletive].' It was a classic Rhode Island greeting!''
I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Harrington's article be printed in
the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
Lieutenant Dudingston, of course, refused Whipple's demand, and
instead ordered his men to fire upon anyone who attempted to board the
Gaspee. The Rhode Islanders saw their advantage. They outnumbered the
British, and they swarmed on the Gaspee. Shots rang out in the dark.
Lieutenant Dudingston fell wounded in the arm and the thigh. That night
in the waters off Warwick, RI, the very first blood in the conflict
that was to become the American Revolution was drawn by American arms--
a little bit more than just tea over the side into Boston Harbor.
As the patriots commandeered the ship, Brown ordered one of his Rhode
Islanders, a physician named John Mawney, to tend to Dudingston's
wounds. Mawney was an able doctor and saved the lieutenant. Brown and
Whipple took the captive English crew ashore, and then they returned to
the despised Gaspee to rid Narragansett Bay of her detested presence
once and for all. They set her afire. The blaze spread, reaching the
ship's charges of gunpowder and cannons, setting off explosions like
fireworks.
Ultimately, the flames reached the Gaspee's powder magazine, and the
resulting blast echoed across Narragansett Bay, as airborne fragments
of the Gaspee splashed down into the water beneath a moonless sky. Nick
Bunker wrote that the British had never seen anything quite like the
Gaspee affair. Their attack on the ship amounted to a complete
rejection of the empire's right to rule.
According to Dan Harrington's op-ed, King George III was furious and
offered huge rewards for the capture of the rebels. Inquiries were made
and nooses fashioned. But in the end, not one name was produced, as
thousands of Rhode Islanders remained true to silence. The site of this
historic victory is now named Gaspee Point in honor of this incident
and the audacious Rhode Islanders who accomplished it.
According to Bunker, the Rhode Island patriots successfully organized
``a military operation 3 years ahead of its time, that arose not merely
from a private quarrel but also a matrix of ideas''--the ideas of
liberty. Rhode Islanders have made a tradition of celebrating the
Gaspee incident. This year marks the 50th annual Gaspee Days
celebration in Warwick. Over the years, we celebrate by marching in the
annual parade, as we recall the courage of the men who fired the first
shots and drew the first blood in the quest for American independence.
I would like to thank the Gaspee Days Committee for their continuing
efforts to host this annual celebration and my friend, State
Representative Joe McNamara, for his work each year in making this
event so special. I come to the floor every year at this time to speak
about the burning of the Gaspee, because as proud as I am of what those
brave Rhode Islanders did back in 1772, I am also disappointed that
their story has largely been lost to history outside our little State.
I hope these speeches will help new generations to learn about this
important American event. In Rhode Island, of course, we will never
forget. As Mr. Harrington wrote in his piece in the Providence Journal,
``Through the ages, noble Rhode Islanders have named their daughters
Hannah in honor of the ship that long ago led a fledgling young country
toward independence and helped create the finest nation ever born of
man.''
I yield the floor.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Providence Journal, June 2, 2015]
The Gaspee, the Hero and the Dud
(By Daniel F. Harrington)
Every story needs a good villain, and 243 years ago the
British dropped a big one on us. His name was Dudingston. His
job? Preventing piracy on Narragansett Bay--or, in layman's
terms, shaking down every merchant he could catch.
Lt. William Dudingston, 31, and his dreaded ship the HMS
Gaspee arbitrarily halted and often seized the cargo of Rhode
Island ships at will. And he did it all in the name of
taxation. Think of him as an Internal Revenue Service agent
and mob boss rolled into one.
He wore a gold-trimmed cap and had a proclivity for rum.
The governor of Rhode Island repeatedly challenged the
Crown to check the lieutenant's brazen misbehavior, but his
requests were largely ignored. So on Dudingston went.
Until he met our heroes.
The first was Capt. Benjamin Lindsey, who skippered a sloop
called the Hannah. He had had enough. Returning from New York
on June 9, 1772, he was greeted in Newport with cannon fire
from the Gaspee after refusing Dudingston's command to strike
his flag. Then, trusting ``the Dud'' knew more about
extortion than navigation, Lindsey led him on a four-hour
chase up Narragansett Bay. It was the Dud's guns versus
Lindsey's guts.
Lindsey skillfully piloted his ship toward Pawtuxet Cove
and specifically to a menacing sandbar, trusting the heavy
Gaspee and its rum-fueled captain would run aground.
They did!
But Lindsey didn't stop there. He sailed north to
Providence and informed fellow merchant John Brown about the
sitting Dud. At dusk, Brown sent a town crier through the
streets of Providence and assembled a raiding party of
tavern-friendly professional men.
[[Page S3920]]
Rowing to the doomed ship in long boats, the Patriots
reached the Gaspee around midnight.
Capt. Abraham Whipple spoke first for the Rhode Islanders,
summoning Dudingston: ``I am sheriff of Kent county, Goddamn
you. I have a warrant to apprehend you, Goddamn you; so
surrender, Goddamn you.'' It was a classic Rhode Island
greeting!
Then a shot rang out. Dudingston fell when a ball hit him
five inches below his navel. ``Good God, I am done for!'' he
cried.
And then a miracle.
As the Dud lay bleeding to death, a raider stepped forward.
It was 21-year-old physician--and genius--John Mawney, who
performed life-saving surgery on him. Astonished, Dudingston
then offered the doctor a gold buckle. Mawney refused it, but
accepted a silver one.
The Rhode Islanders then set the Gaspee aflame and the
warship exploded, lighting up Narragansett Bay as never
before--or since.
King George III was furious and offered huge rewards for
the capture of the rebels. Inquiries were made and nooses
fashioned, but in the end, not one name was produced, as
thousands of Rhode Islanders remained true to silence.
The burning of the Gaspee steeled the resolve of all the
colonies and inspired the Boston Tea Party 18 months later.
In 1922, The New York Times memorably editorialized that the
boldness of the Gaspee incident made The Boston Tea Party
look, by comparison, like a tea party!
Meanwhile, back in Britain, Dudingston would survive court
martial for losing his ship, receive a disability pension and
live another 45 years and become a rear admiral.
One man remains lost to history.
No one knows what happened to America's first hero, Captain
Lindsey. The most wanted man in the world quickly disappeared
and dissolved into time. We've never found his resting
place--probably because he was buried at sea. So he eludes us
still, although some say you can still hear him rousing the
Hannah when the fog of Narragansett Bay is unusually thick .
. .
Not all have forgotten. Through the ages, noble Rhode
Islanders have named their daughters Hannah in honor of the
ship that long ago led a fledgling young country toward
independence and helped create the finest nation ever born of
man. And her name is still sweet, for it echoes the refrain
of liberty and recalls the powerful truth that ``God hath
chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things
that are mighty.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, we are hopefully going to be able to
vote very shortly on an amendment to the NDAA that I have submitted,
No. 1901, which speaks to a pretty simple concept that when we spend
taxpayer money and 70 percent of the goods that we purchase with
taxpayer dollars come through the Defense Department, we should be
spending that money on American companies.
We should be using our resources as a nation to purchase things from
companies here in the United States. That has been the law on the books
since the 1930s. The Buy America Act, for economic and national
security reasons, directs the U.S. Government to buy at least 50
percent of the components of any good from U.S. companies. The problem
is that over time, loophole after loophole and exception after
exception have been built into the Buy America Act, such that today the
exceptions really are the rule.
The consequences are pretty dire for American workers. It means that
thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of workers have
lost their job because work that should have gone to American companies
to build components for jet engines, tanks, and submarines are going
overseas. But for our national security, we also are faced with issues
as well, given the fact that as our supply chain becomes much more
internationalized, we are relying on countries that today might be our
allies to supply parts but that tomorrow might not. It puts us at risk
potentially down the line.
So I am proposing a pretty simple amendment here, which is really
just about sunlight. I had previously hoped to push an amendment that
would have actually cut down on one of the waivers that is the most
egregious. But I am hoping for a consensus on an amendment that would
just make clear that we have to get some more information about some of
the worst loopholes to the ``Buy American'' law. The worst of them,
and, in fact, the majority of the waivers for the Buy American Act come
through one specific waiver.
There are about eight ways to get around buying things in the United
States for the U.S. military. But one of them is that if you can prove
that the usage of the good is going to be primarily overseas, you can
buy that good overseas. Now, that is an understandable exception if you
are talking about the purchase of something such as fuel or food that
simply does not make sense to import from the United States. But
because there is really no oversight at all on this waiver and because
over the last 10 years, having fought two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,
this relatively small loophole, as it appears on the written page, has
become an enormous loophole.
So $17 billion in goods were made overseas, and in 2014, 83 percent
of them were done through this particular ``Buy America'' loophole. So
I want to just talk for a second about what some of these waivers are
being used to purchase. This is an Opel light-duty cargo van that has
been purchased by the U.S. military for a variety of activities. This
was not an emergency expenditure. Very clearly, you are buying this van
for activities that you can plan for. It is not something that you
could not import from the United States.
This contract, which was entered into at the height of the auto
crisis, was $2.9 million in total--$2.9 million that went to a foreign
auto company instead of going to a company in the United States. This
is clearly something--a cargo van--not being used on the frontlines of
our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that could have been bought from an
American auto company. Ford, Chevrolet, and Chrysler make versions of
this van that are produced by American workers.
There were $39 million worth of waivers for jet engines and gas
turbines. There was $28 million worth of waivers simply for men's
clothing. There were $11 million of waivers that were used for shoes,
for men's footwear. So it is clear that these waivers are being used
not for goods that are urgently needed in the field that had to be
purchased in a place such as Afghanistan or Iraq or in the region but
simply to avoid the ``Buy American'' law.
I want to amend my previous statement. It was not $17 billion in
goods that were bought from foreign firms, it was $176 billion in
manufactured goods that were bought--and services--from foreign firms.
So if it were up to me, we would tighten this loophole. We would bring
billions of dollars of work back to the United States simply by saying
that you have to have an urgent national security need in order to buy
the good overseas.
But if it is not urgent, if you are just buying some vans to cart
around equipment or people, then you should buy them from the United
States. But amendment No. 1901 is a little bit simpler, in that it just
requires that we continue to get reports from the Department of Defense
detailing the waivers that they have been granted for the ``Buy
American'' law, so that we have a pretty good idea as to how much work
we have lost to foreign firms, how many U.S. workers have lost their
jobs because taxpayer dollars are going overseas.
It adds a little new wrinkle to these reports so that when it comes
to these waivers, the waiver for goods that are primarily used
overseas, which was 83 percent in 2014 of all of the waivers that were
granted, we get a little bit more information so that for waivers for
contracts over $5 million--these are pretty big contracts--we know what
you are buying, why you need it, and why you are required to buy it
overseas.
I think that this information is just sunlight on the waiver process.
Again, a waiver process which is sending overseas $176 billion worth of
American taxpayer paid-for jobs should have more information so that we
can make decisions. It is funny, when I talk to my constituents and I
tell them that I am fighting for the ``Buy American'' law and that I am
fighting to make sure that at least 50 percent of their dollars get
spent to buy things from American companies when they are used by the
U.S. military, they have a bewildered look on their face because they
assume that is the policy of the U.S. Government to begin with.
Why on Earth would our taxpayer dollars be used to buy things
overseas?
There are some commonsense reasons why that happens. Obviously, as I
said, when you are buying something like food or fuel for the
military's use in Afghanistan or in Iraq, it makes sense to buy that
overseas. If you can't find it
[[Page S3921]]
in the United States, if there is not a single contractor that makes
what you are looking for in the United States, then, by all means, you
are going to have to buy that overseas. If there is such a price
differential, such an enormous price differential that it is a waste of
taxpayer dollars to buy it from American companies--and, frankly, those
are fairly minute exceptions--then it makes sense to do a work-around
on the ``Buy American'' law.
But we have seen hundreds of billions of dollars in waivers, waivers
that are being used for reasons that you just can't justify but also
through a process that includes really no oversight. On that waiver
that allows for goods to be purchased overseas when you can't find it
in the United States, there are examples where a simple Google search
could have found the item in the United States, but a waiver was still
signed, allowing it to be bought overseas because it wasn't available
here--just no oversight, making sure we are only giving these waivers
in the right circumstances.
I have talked a number of times on this floor about a company that
folded up shop in Waterbury, CT, a legacy company in the Naugatuck
Valley, Ansonia Copper & Brass. It made the copper nickel tubing for
the American submarine fleet. It was the only company in the United
States that made this particular item.
It is out of business today because of the loopholes in the ``Buy
American'' law. We are now buying our copper nickel tubing from a
foreign company. Now, that put dozens of people out of work in
Connecticut, but it also put in jeopardy our national security. If the
supplier of this copper nickel tubing, which is not something you can
make easily--it requires incredible expertise, complicated machinery.
If the country we are getting it from today decides they are not going
to supply it to us because they oppose the way in which we are using
it, we can't make it in the United States any longer. You can't just
reassemble the ability to make that particular good, complicated tubing
that goes inside one of the most complicated pieces of machinery in the
U.S. Navy, a submarine. You can't just do that overnight. So at the
very least, we should be getting all of the information we need to do
proper oversight on this process of granting waivers.
I have been pleased at the willingness of Chairman McCain and his
staff, along with the ranking member Senator Reed, to work with us on
this amendment, this sunlight amendment, this disclosure amendment.
Hopefully, over the course of today or tomorrow, we will be able to
include this in one of the managers' packages that we adopt on the
Senate floor, and it will allow us to have a more robust conversation
as to why on Earth we spent U.S. taxpayer dollars on this van, when $3
million--at the height of the auto crisis--could have gone to an
American company making a similar vehicle. That is a conversation that
on behalf of the literally hundreds of thousands of American workers
who don't have jobs today because we are spending taxpayer dollars
overseas--for their sake, they deserve for us to have that debate.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Cassidy and Ms. Collins pertaining to the
introduction of S. 1531 are printed in today's Record under
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
____________________