[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.'')

                          ____________________