[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 93 (Thursday, June 11, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4073-S4090]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 1735, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 1735) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2016 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other
purposes.
Pending:
McCain amendment No. 1463, in the nature of a substitute.
McCain amendment No. 1456 (to amendment No. 1463), to
require additional information supporting long-range plans
for construction of naval vessels.
Cornyn amendment No. 1486 (to amendment No. 1463), to
require reporting on energy security issues involving Europe
and the Russian Federation, and to express the sense of
Congress regarding ways the United States could help
vulnerable allies and partners with energy security.
Vitter amendment No. 1473 (to amendment No. 1463), to limit
the retirement of Army combat units.
Markey amendment No. 1645 (to amendment No. 1463), to
express the sense of Congress that exports of crude oil to
United States allies and partners should not be determined to
be consistent with the national interest if those exports
would increase energy prices in the United States for
American consumers or businesses or increase the reliance of
the United States on imported oil.
Reed (for Blumenthal) amendment No. 1564 (to amendment No.
1463), to increase civil penalties for violations of the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.
McCain (for Paul) modified amendment No. 1543 (to amendment
No. 1463), to strengthen employee cost savings suggestions
programs within the Federal Government.
Reed (for Durbin) modified amendment No. 1559 (to amendment
No. 1463), to prohibit the award of Department of Defense
contracts to inverted domestic corporations.
McCain (for Burr) modified amendment No. 1569 (to amendment
No. 1463), to improve cybersecurity in the United States
through enhanced sharing of information about cybersecurity
threats.
Feinstein (for McCain) amendment No. 1889 (to amendment No.
1463), to reaffirm the prohibition on torture.
Fischer/Booker amendment No. 1825 (to amendment No. 1463),
to authorize appropriations for national security aspects of
the Merchant Marine for fiscal years 2016 and 2017.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, as we return to the legislation,
unfortunately we are still, apparently, unable to move forward with
managers' packages and amendments and others. So I would like to
apologize to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have pending
amendments, who have parts of managers' packages, and who have invested
so many hours of time and effort to this legislation, not to mention
members of the committee who spent an inordinate amount of time putting
together a Defense authorization bill that I think all of us on both
sides, with the exception of four who voted against it, were proud of
and a product that was accomplished in a bipartisan fashion.
I, again, want to thank my friend from Rhode Island for all of his
hard work. But apparently right now we are still stuck in resistance.
Rather than go through all of the reasons why, I hope we can have some
serious negotiations in order for us to move forward and complete this
legislation.
Meanwhile, the world moves on, and there are greater and greater
challenges to our security. In fact, this morning the New York Times
says: ``Trainers Intended as Lift, but Quick Iraq Turnaround Is
Unlikely.'' That is The New York Times.
The New York Times says:
Mr. Obama's plan does not call for small teams of American
troops to accompany Iraqi fighters onto the battlefield, to
call in airstrikes or advise on combat operations. Nor is it
likely to significantly intensify an air campaign in which
American warplanes have been able to locate and bomb their
targets only about a quarter of the time.
``This alone is not going to do it,'' said Michele A.
Flournoy, who was the senior policy official in the Pentagon
during Mr. Obama's first term. ``It is a great first step,
but it should be the first in a series of steps.''
One of the reasons I have that quote from Michele Flournoy is that it
is not just former Bush administration officials. It is former Obama
administration officials who all agree that what we are doing is
without strategy and without prospect of success.
POLITICO article: ``Obama's Iraq quagmire.''
The President finds himself dragged back into a war he was
elected to end.
When pressed on why the latest efforts do not include
having American troops serve as spotters for airstrikes or
sending Apache aircraft to back up the Iraqi troops, Deputy
National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters the
president ``has been very clear he'll look at a range of
different options.''
That is encouraging that the President has been very clear. I love
it. All these spokespeople use two sorts of fillers: One is ``very
clear'' and the other is ``quite frankly.''
Do you ever notice that? Isn't that interesting? Maybe we should take
that out of their vocabulary--``very clear'' and ``frankly''--when they
are neither clear nor frank.
But anyway, Mr. Rhodes said--he is really a very interesting guy:
``The U.S. military cannot and should not do this simply for Iraqis,
and, frankly, Iraqis want to be in the lead themselves.''
``The U.S. military cannot and should not do this simply for
Iraqis.''
Does anyone in the world think that the United States of America
would be engaged simply for Iraqis? Has Mr. Rhodes ever listened to Mr.
Baghdadi and ISIS and their intentions to attack and destroy America as
much as they possibly can?
POLITICO: ``Trainers or advisors? White House and Pentagon don't
agree.''
The White House says the new batch of troops deploying to
Iraq are going to train Iraqi recruits to fight the Islamic
State. The Pentagon says the 450 American personnel headed to
Al-Taqaddum Air Base are going over just as advisers.
The mixed signals come as President Barack Obama struggles
to find a balance between achieving his goal of ``degrading
and ultimately destroying'' the terrorist group known as the
Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant while avoiding
restarting a war in
[[Page S4074]]
Iraq that he has worked to end since he became President in
2009.
From The Wall Street Journal editorial this morning: ``Obama's Latest
Iraq Escalation.''
President Obama all but admitted on Wednesday that his
strategy against the Islamic State is flailing by ordering an
additional 450 U.S. military advisers to join the 3,500
already in Iraq. Alas, this looks like more of the half-
hearted incrementalism that hasn't worked so far.
The fundamental problem with Mr. Obama's strategy is that
he is so determined to show that the U.S. isn't returning to
war in Iraq that he isn't doing enough to win the war we are
fighting. In September he pledged to ``degrade'' and
ultimately ``destroy'' ISIS--the kind of commitment a U.S.
President must never make lightly. But his fitful bombing and
timid special-forces campaign hasn't been able to stop the
jihadist advances, much less drive it out of Iraq's western
cities.
The longer ISIS stands up to a U.S. President pledging its
destruction, the more of a magnet it becomes for young men
willing to die for its perverted form of Islam.
Again, an article in the Wall Street Journal today: ``To U.S. Allies,
Al Qaeda Affiliate in Syria Becomes the Lesser Evil.''
This is what so many of us were so concerned about when we literally
begged for help for the Free Syrian Army back as long ago as 3 years
ago--that we would end up in a situation where we had the Faustian
choice of Al Qaeda, Bashar al-Assad versus Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda-
affiliated organizations. That is a scenario that most of us said might
happen, unless we supported the Free Syrian Army.
The Wall Street Journal says:
In the three-way war ravaging Syria, should the local Al
Qaeda branch be seen as the lesser evil to be wooed rather
than bombed?
This is increasingly the view of some of America's regional
allies and even some Western officials.
Outnumbered and outgunned, the more secular, Western-backed
rebels have found themselves fighting shoulder to shoulder
with Nusra in key battlefields.
The list goes on and on.
Lebanon's Labor Minister, who is a prominent Lebanese Christian
politician long opposed to Mr. Assad, said:
``This is great error--we refuse the choice between ISIS
and Nusra, We want to choose between democracy and
dictatorship, not between terrorism and terrorism. If the
Syrians have to choose between ISIS, Nusra or Assad, they
will choose Assad.''
That is exactly the situation that Assad has been hoping for.
The New York Times: ``Russian Groups Crowdfund the War in Ukraine.''
The Novorossiya Humanitarian Battalion boasts on its
website that it provided funds to buy a pair of binoculars
used by rebels in eastern Ukraine to spot and destroy an
armored vehicle. . . . It is unclear just how extensive the
fundraising network is, or how much money flows through
it, though the separatist groups identified by The Times
claim in social media posts to have raised millions of
dollars.
The New York Times, ``Increasingly Frequent Call on Baltic Sea: `The
Russian Navy Is Back.' ''
The Wall Street Journal, ``The New Cold War's Arctic Front: Putin is
militarizing one of the world's coldest, most remote regions.''
The Washington Post:
The U.S. should send aid to democracy's front lines in
Ukraine.
In the past several months, Ukraine's freely elected
government has taken dramatic steps to reform its economy,
fight corruption and rebuild democratic institutions. It has
imposed painful austerity on average Ukrainians, stripped
oligarchs of political and economic privileges and rewritten
laws to encourage free enterprise and foreign investment. It
has done all this even while fighting a low-grade war against
Russia, which has deployed an estimated 10,000 troops to
eastern Ukraine and, with its local proxies, attacks
Ukrainian forces on a near-daily basis. . . . What's missing
is a decision by Mr. Obama to make the defense of Ukraine a
priority. The president has ceded leadership on the issue to
Germany and France and overridden those in his administration
and Congress who support arms deliveries. . . . A stronger
U.S. commitment to Ukraine will not guarantee its success.
But Mr. Obama's lukewarm support risks a catastrophic failure
for the cause of Western democracy.
I cannot emphasize enough to my colleagues that this is a critical
and fundamental issue as to whether we will provide defensive weapons
to Ukraine, and I would remind my colleagues who don't want to send
American troops anywhere that they are not asking for American troops.
They are not asking for a single boot on the ground. Why in the world
we can't provide them with defensive weapons is something I will never
understand as long as I live.
The New York Times, ``Hackers May Have Obtained Names of Chinese with
Ties to U.S. Government.''
And, of course, we all know that in the last week some 4 million
Americans, at least, have been hacked into and had some of their most
sensitive information broken into, which is one of the arguments many
of us had for consideration of the cyber bill on the floor of the
Senate as part of the Defense bill. Obviously, we are in a cyber war.
Obviously, it requires the involvement and engagement of the Department
of Defense, along with our intelligence agencies, and that is why I am
a bit taken aback by the vociferous opposition by my colleagues on that
side of the aisle to addressing this issue since it is clearly part of
the defense and security of this Nation.
I would like to mention--and I appreciate the indulgence of my friend
from Rhode Island--the issue of Russian rocket engines. Less than 6
months after the prohibition was enacted in last year's NDAA, which
would end the use of RD-180 on military space launches by 2019, the
administration has stated they want access to 14 more Russian rocket
engines. Agreeing to the administration's request endorses another 8
years of Russian rocket engines and over $300 million for Vladimir
Putin and his cronies.
We must not reward Vladimir Putin and the Russian military industrial
complex. We cannot in good conscience agree to reward the Russian
military industrial base with over $300 million in rocket engines while
they occupy Crimea, destabilize Ukraine, send weapons to Iran, and
violate the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
The bill before us today would limit the use of Russian rocket
engines and restates the committee's direction to end the use of
Russian engines for national security space launches by 2019. There are
some who want to continue our Nation's dependence on Russian rocket
engines. The NDAA would put an end to this dependence and stop hundreds
of millions of dollars from going to Vladimir Putin. We can meet our
national security space needs without Russia, and we must lead by
example by eliminating our dependence as quickly as possible and
fostering competition.
I say to my colleagues, we have two launch providers, ULA and SpaceX.
Regardless of the Russian RD-180, we will be able to provide full
redundant capabilities by 2017 with the Delta IV, Falcon 9, and Falcon
Heavy. There will be no capability gap. The Atlas 5 is not going
anywhere anytime soon. With the engines allowed under this amendment,
ULA has enough Atlas 5s to get them through at least 2018, if not
later.
As the New York Times editorial board stated last week:
When sanctions are necessary, the countries that impose
them must be willing to pay a cost, too. After leaning on
France to cancel the sale of two ships to Russia because of
the invasion of Ukraine, the United States can hardly insist
on continuing to buy national security hardware from one of
Mr. Putin's cronies.
I have a Reuter's article from last year. ``Comrade Capitalism: In
murky Pentagon deal with Russia, big profit for a tiny Florida firm.''
ULA's dealings with Russia are troubling and ethically questionable.
A Reuters investigation this past November on the RD-180 raises
troubling issues regarding the businesses and shell companies that
facilitate the purchase of Russian rocket engines. The report describes
a five-person company called RD AMROSS, a joint venture between Russian
rocket engine manufacturer Energomash and Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne
that collects nearly $93 million in cost markups.
The article uncovers that in the past, RD AMROSS was investigated by
the Defense Contract Management Agency, which determined that in a
previous contract, RD AMROSS had collected $80 million in ``unallowable
excessive pass-through charges.''
The article titled ``Comrade Capitalism'' also exposed the role
senior Russian politicians and close friends of Vladimir Putin play in
the in the Energomash management. The article states that according to
a Russian audit of Energomash, the Russian rocket manufacturer had been
operating at a loss because funds were
[[Page S4075]]
``being captured by unnamed offshore intermediary companies.''
Well, I just want to say there is no argument for the continued
purchase of these rocket engines from the Russians--from Vladimir Putin
and his cronies, one of whom was involved in the management and has
been sanctioned by the United States of America.
I have confidence America is capable of building our own rocket
engines, and I am confident we can do that in a reasonable period of
time--like 1 to 2 years. For us to commit to the continued use of these
rocket engines and making millions and millions of dollars, in this
case $300 million, for Vladimir Putin and his cronies is--the question
has to be asked of individuals who want to continue the purchase of
these rocket engines from this Russian shell company: Why do you want
to help Vladimir Putin? Why do you want to help Vladimir Putin and his
cronies by giving them as much as $300 million? That is a legitimate
question.
If any of my colleagues who support this basically unlimited or
continued purchase of rocket engines from Russia rather than having it
terminated in a reasonable and very short time, the question has to be
asked: Why are you helping Vladimir Putin? Why are you helping his
cronies? That is a legitimate question, and if any of my colleagues try
to force this continued and unnecessary purchase of Russian rocket
engines, that question needs to be asked of them.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1473, As Modified
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my
amendment No. 1473 be modified with the changes at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
On page 38, line 12, insert after ``fighter aircraft'' the
following: ``and army combat units''.
On page 43, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
(e) Minimum Number of Army Brigade Combat Teams.--Section
3062 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following new subsection:
``(e)(1) Effective October 1, 2015, the Secretary of the
Army shall maintain the following:
``(A) A total number of brigade combat teams for the
regular and reserve components of the Army of not fewer than
32 brigade combat teams.
``(B) A total number of brigade combat teams for the Army
National Guard of not fewer than 26 brigade combat teams.
``(2) In this subsection, the term ` brigade combat team'
means any unit that consists of--
``(A) an arms branch maneuver brigade;
``(B) its assigned support units; and
``(C) its assigned fire teams''.
(f) Reduction of Army Brigade Combat Teams.--
(1) Preservation of teams.--The Secretary of the Army shall
give priority to maintaining 32 brigade combat teams for the
Army as required by subsection (e)(1) of section 3062 of
title 10 United States Code (as amended by subsection (e) of
this section), and shall carry out such priority as funding
or appropriations become available to maintain such war
fighting capability.
(2) Reduction.--Notwithstanding subsection (e)(1) of
section 3062 of title 10 United States Code (as so amended),
or paragraph (1) of this subsection, the Secretary may, after
October 1, 2015, reduce the number of brigade combat teams
for the Army to fewer than 32 brigade combat teams upon the
latest of the following:
(A) The date that is 30 days after the date on which the
Secretary submits the report required by paragraph (3).
(B) The date that is 30 days after the date on which the
Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees
that the reduction of Army brigade combat teams will not
increase the operational risk of meeting the National Defense
Strategy.
(C) The date that is 30 days after the date on which the
Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees
that funding or appropriations are not adequate to sustain 32
brigade combat teams for the regular Army.
(3) Report.--The Secretary shall submit to the
congressional defense committees a report setting forth the
following:
(A) The rationale for any proposed reduction of the total
strength of the Army, including the National Guard and
Reserves, below the strength provided in subsection (e) of
section 3062 of title 10, United States Code (as so amended),
and an operational analysis of the total strength of the Army
that demonstrates performance of the designated mission at an
equal or greater level of effectiveness as the personnel of
the Army so reduced.
(B) An assessment of the implications for the Army, the
Army National Guard of the United States, and the Army
Reserve of the force mix ratio of Army troop strengths and
combat units after such reduction.
(C) Such other matters relating to the reduction of the
total strength of the Army as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
(g) Additional Reports.--
(1) In general.--At least 90 days before the date on which
the total strength of the Army, including the National Guard
and Reserves, is reduced below the strength provided in
subsection (e) of section 3062 of title 10, United States
Code (as amended by subsection (e) of this section), the
Secretary of the Army, in consultation with (where
applicable) the Director of the Army National Guard or Chief
of the Army Reserve, shall submit to the congressional
defense committees a report on the reduction.
(2) Elements.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1)
shall include the following:
(A) A list of each major combat unit of the Army that will
remain after the reduction, organized by division and
enumerated down to the brigade combat team-level or its
equivalent, including for each such brigade combat team--
(i) the mission it is assigned to; and
(ii) the assigned unit and military installation where it
is based.
(B) A list of each brigade combat team proposed for
disestablishment, including for each such unit--
(i) the mission it is assigned to; and
(ii) the assigned unit and military installation where it
is based.
(C) A list of each unit affected by a proposed
disestablishment listed under subparagraph (B) and a
description of how such unit is affected.
(D) For each military installation and unit listed under
subparagraph (B)(ii), a description of changes, if any, to
the designed operational capability (DOC) statement of the
unit as a result of a proposed disestablishment.
(E) A description of any anticipated changes in manpower
authorizations as a result of a proposed disestablishment
listed under subparagraph (B).
(h) Report Manning of Brigade Combat Teams at Achievement
of Army Active End-strength.--Upon the achievement of the end
strength for active duty personnel of the Army specified in
section 401(1), the Secretary of the Army shall submit to the
congressional defense committees a report on the current
manning of each brigade combat team of the Army.
(i) Construction.--Nothing in this section should be
construed to supersede Army manning of brigade combat teams
at designated levels.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I discussed this amendment yesterday on
the floor. It deals with brigade combat teams in the Army, making sure
we don't cut through fat and into meat and bone with regard to that
essential part of our force. I urge bipartisan support of this
commonsense amendment.
There is already language in the underlying bill that takes similar
action on the Air Force side and on the Navy side with regard to major,
significant key units in those forces, and it is the same principle
that would be applied to the Army's brigade combat teams.
This amendment is strongly supported by the national organizations
built around both the Army National Guard and the Regular Army.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Amendment No. 1564
Mr. REED. Madam President, I call for regular order with respect to
amendment No. 1564.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
Amendment No. 1564, as Modified
Mr. REED. I have a modification to that amendment, which is at the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
At the end of subtitle G of title X, add the following:
SEC. 1085. INTEREST RATE LIMITATION ON DEBT ENTERED INTO
DURING MILITARY SERVICE TO CONSOLIDATE OR
REFINANCE STUDENT LOANS INCURRED BEFORE
MILITARY SERVICE.
(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 207 of the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. App. 527) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``on debt incurred
before service'' after ``Limitation to 6 percent'';
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs
(3) and (4), respectively;
[[Page S4076]]
(3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraph (2):
``(2) Limitation to 6 percent on debt incurred during
service to consolidate or refinance student loans incurred
before service.--An obligation or liability bearing interest
at a rate in excess of 6 percent per year that is incurred by
a servicemember, or the servicemember and the servicemember's
spouse jointly, during military service to consolidate or
refinance one or more student loans incurred by the
servicemember before such military service shall not bear an
interest at a rate in excess of 6 percent during the period
of military service.'';
(4) in paragraph (3), as redesignated by paragraph (2) of
this subsection, by inserting ``or (2)'' after ``paragraph
(1)''; and
(5) in paragraph (4), as so redesignated, by striking
``paragraph (2)'' and inserting ``paragraph (3)''.
(b) Implementation of Limitation.--Subsection (b) of such
section is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``the interest rate
limitation in subsection (a)'' and inserting ``an interest
rate limitation in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a)'';
and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``as of date of
order to active duty''; and
(B) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``in the case of an obligation or liability
covered by subsection (a)(1), or as of the date the
servicemember (or servicemember and spouse jointly) incurs
the obligation or liability concerned under subsection
(a)(2)''.
(c) Student Loan Defined.--Subsection (d) of such section
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Student loan.--The term `student loan' means the
following:
``(A) A Federal student loan made, insured, or guaranteed
under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1070 et seq.).
``(B) A private student loan as that term is defined in
section 140(a) of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C.
1650(a)).''.
SEC. 1086. TERMINATION OF RESIDENTIAL LEASES AFTER ASSIGNMENT
OR RELOCATION TO QUARTERS OF UNITED STATES OR
HOUSING FACILITY UNDER JURISDICTION OF
UNIFORMED SERVICE.
(a) Termination of Residential Leases.--
(1) In general.--Section 305 of the Servicemembers Civil
Relief Act (50 U.S.C. App. 535) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(1)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; or''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) in the case of a lease described in subsection (b)(1)
and subparagraph (C) of such subsection, the date the lessee
is assigned to or otherwise relocates to quarters or a
housing facility as described in such subparagraph.''; and
(B) in subsection (b)(1)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; or''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) the lease is executed by or on behalf of a person who
thereafter and during the term of the lease is assigned to or
otherwise relocates to quarters of the United States or a
housing facility under the jurisdiction of a uniformed
service (as defined in section 101 of title 37, United States
Code), including housing provided under the Military Housing
Privatization Initiative.''.
(2) Manner of termination.--Subsection (c)(1) of such
section is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by inserting ``in the case of a lease described in
subsection (b)(1) and subparagraph (A) or (B) of such
subsection,'' before ``by delivery''; and
(ii) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
and
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new
subparagraph (B):
``(B) in the case of a lease described in subsection (b)(1)
and subparagraph (C) of such subsection, by delivery by the
lessee of written notice of such termination, and a letter
from the servicemember's commanding officer indicating that
the servicemember has been assigned to or is otherwise
relocating to quarters of the United States or a housing
facility under the jurisdiction of a uniformed service (as
defined in section 101 of title 37, United States Code), to
the lessor (or the lessor's grantee), or to the lessor's
agent (or the agent's grantee); and''.
(b) Definition of Military Orders and Continental United
States for Purposes of Act.--
(1) Transfer of definitions.--Such Act is further amended
by transferring paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 305(i) (50
U.S.C. App. 535(i)) to the end of section 101 (50 U.S.C. App.
511) and redesignating such paragraphs, as so transferred, as
paragraphs (10) and (11).
(2) Conforming amendments.--Such Act is further amended--
(A) in section 305 (50 U.S.C. App. 535), as amended by
paragraph (1), by striking subsection (i); and
(B) in section 705 (50 U.S.C. App. 595), by striking ``or
naval'' both places it appears.
SEC. 1087. PROTECTION OF SURVIVING SPOUSE WITH RESPECT TO
MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE.
(a) In General.--Title III of the Servicemembers Civil
Relief Act (50 U.S.C. App. 531 et seq.) is amended by
inserting after section 303 (50 U.S.C. App. 533) the
following new section:
``SEC. 303A. PROTECTION OF SURVIVING SPOUSE WITH RESPECT TO
MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE.
``(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), with respect
to a servicemember who dies while in military service and who
has a surviving spouse who is the servicemember's successor
in interest to property covered under section 303(a), section
303 shall apply to the surviving spouse with respect to that
property during the one-year period beginning on the date of
such death in the same manner as if the servicemember had not
died.
``(b) Notice Required.--
``(1) In general.--To be covered under this section with
respect to property, a surviving spouse shall submit written
notice that such surviving spouse is so covered to the
mortgagee, trustee, or other creditor of the mortgage, trust
deed, or other security in the nature of a mortgage with
which the property is secured.
``(2) Time.--Notice provided under paragraph (1) shall be
provided with respect to a surviving spouse anytime during
the one-year period beginning on the date of death of the
servicemember with respect to whom the surviving spouse is to
receive coverage under this section.
``(3) Address.--Notice provided under paragraph (1) with
respect to property shall be provided via e-mail, facsimile,
standard post, or express mail to facsimile numbers and
addresses, as the case may be, designated by the servicer of
the mortgage, trust deed, or other security in the nature of
a mortgage with which the property is secured.
``(4) Manner.--Notice provided under paragraph (1) shall be
provided in writing by using a form designed under paragraph
(5) or submitting a copy of a Department of Defense or
Department of Veterans Affairs document evidencing the
military service-related death of a spouse while in military
service.
``(5) Official forms.--The Secretary of Defense shall
design and distribute an official Department of Defense form
that can be used by an individual to give notice under
paragraph (1).''.
(b) Effective Date.--Section 303A of such Act, as added by
subsection (a), shall apply with respect to deaths that occur
on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section
1(b) of such Act (50 U.S.C. App. 501) is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 303 the following new
item:
``Sec. 303A. Protection of surviving spouse with respect to mortgage
foreclosure.''.
SEC. 1088. MAKING PERMANENT EXTENDED PERIOD OF PROTECTIONS
FOR MEMBERS OF UNIFORMED SERVICES RELATING TO
MORTGAGES, MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE, AND EVICTION.
Section 710(d) of the Honoring America's Veterans and
Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-
154) is amended by striking paragraphs (1) and (3).
SEC. 1089. INCREASE IN CIVIL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF
SERVICEMEMBERS CIVIL RELIEF ACT.
(a) In General.--Section 801(b)(3) of the Servicemembers
Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. App. 597(b)(3)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``$55,000'' and
inserting ``$110,000''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``$110,000'' and
inserting ``$220,000''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date that is 180 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act and shall apply with respect to
violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C.
App. 501 et seq.) that occur on or after such date.
Mr. REED. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I suggest the absence of
a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Bipartisan Solutions
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, this morning I heard the distinguished
majority leader say it was a time for bipartisan solutions. He said:
``What America needs right now is a season of serious bipartisan
solutions.''
Democrats couldn't agree more. We have been asking for weeks for all
parties to sit down and start talking about the budget--not at the
eleventh hour, not when we are already at the edge of a cliff, but now.
From a substantive perspective, this only makes sense. Both parties
hate the sequester. Both parties understand there is a smarter way to
budget than senselessly acting as though we are hostage to these
arbitrary, meat-cleaver cuts that were never intended to go into
effect, whether on the defense side or on the nondefense side.
So, Mr. Majority Leader, let's sit down and start talking about some
serious bipartisan solutions.
[[Page S4077]]
The majority leader makes it seem as though he has been negotiating
and being fair. Every number in the Appropriations Committee had no
consultation from the Democrats. They just chose the numbers. That is
not bipartisan. They did not talk to the White House, which has veto
power over every one of these. That is not bipartisan.
We all know that the only way we are going to get something done on
the budget, on the spending bills is by sitting down together and
talking. Why not sooner rather than later? Why not now rather than at
the last minute?
There is a charade going on by my friends on the other side. They
totally decide the appropriations numbers by themselves. They totally
decide to use OCO for defense but they do nothing for the nondefense
side. Then they say: Let's move forward with those bills.
That is not bipartisan. Have any Democrats been consulted? I ask the
majority leader: Who has he consulted on the other side of the aisle
about his numbers? Who has he consulted at the White House about his
numbers? He knows he needs input from both to get anything done.
I think what the majority leader wants to do is play a game of
chicken--wait until the end and then say: Do it our way. Well, that is
not going to work.
Over the next month or two, the American people are going to see that
we will not move forward on these proposals until--but certainly with
great vigor when--there is a bipartisan discussion and agreement. We
all know how this place works. The Senate and our system of
government--both the executive and the Congress--are involved in doing
the budget and doing the appropriations bills in particular. It works
only when both parties come to agreement. When one party tries to shove
things down the other party's throat, which, in all due respect, is
what the majority leader is now doing, we end up with worries and
sometimes the reality of a government shutdown. If the majority leader
wants that, he should continue with this strategy, and any shutdown
will be on his hands. We don't want that, the American people don't
want that, and my guess is most of the Members on this side of the
aisle don't want that. We want to come to an agreement.
All we want the majority leader to do is talk to us, not to decide in
his office or maybe with the chair of the Appropriations Committee what
all the numbers should be--how much to spend on defense, how much to
spend on education, how much to spend on highways. Those are some of
the most important decisions we make around here, and they will not be
made without bipartisanship, sooner rather than later.
Mr. Majority Leader, like it or not, we have a Democratic President,
and we have 46 Democratic votes in the Senate--enough to stop us from
moving forward if we can't negotiate--like it or not, Mr. Majority
Leader.
The path the majority leader is pursuing is a cul-de-sac that will
either force us to sit down and negotiate later in the day or force a
CR, which no one wants, or even if some of the people on that side of
the aisle have their way, a government shutdown, as they did once
before. None of those is a good solution. The best solution is for us
to all sit down and talk. We should not keep kicking the can down the
road. Yet, here we are.
In Roll Call this week: ``McConnell Cool to Budget Summit.''
When he was asked: Is it time to start talking about the budget, he
replied: No, of course not. Why? What is his logic? His logic is
Democrats should just accept everything Republicans want.
That is not why we have two parties. That is not how the Senate
works. That is not how democracy works. There is nothing left for
Democrats to conclude other than that there is a yawning chasm between
the Republican leader's stated intentions and his actions to date,
because the current posture by the majority has been this: my way or
shut down the government. Well, we have seen that before, it didn't
work, and it is not going to work this time.
We are saying, let's negotiate and let's start those negotiations
soon, before it is too late. If the Republican leader truly wants a
season of bipartisan solutions, well, the winds are blowing in one
direction. Sit down with Democrats and let's start negotiating a
sensible budget, and let's start doing it now. We are ready to sit down
this afternoon. We are ready to sit down at any moment that he gives us
a signal. Let's get in the room and start the real work of finding
bipartisan agreement on the budget, plain and simple.
One other thing, when the American people ask why Washington so
gridlocked, just look at how the majority leader is handling one of the
most important parts of what the government does, where the dollars go.
There is gridlock when one side insists that it has to get all of its
way and not sit down with the other side. That is the path at the
moment that the majority leader is on. We hope he gets off of it. It is
untenable. It won't work. It will lead to a bad solution.
Once again, I repeat: We are willing to sit down and start talking
about the budget, talking about how much to spend on defense and
transportation and education and medical research today. We are
waiting, Mr. Majority Leader, for you to give us that ability, that
signal, so we can actually enact a budget without acrimony and that
will work for this great country of ours.
I yield the floor.
Amendment No. 1569, as Modified
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, earlier this year, the Senate
Intelligence Committee reported the Cybersecurity Information Sharing
Act to the Senate floor. This bill is intended to facilitate sharing of
cyber threat information between the private sector and the government.
While this could be useful in protecting against cyber attacks, I am
concerned that certain provisions in the Senate Intelligence
Committee's bill would severely undermine Americans' privacy.
Senator Burr's bill would remove all existing legal restrictions to
allow an unprecedented wave of information--including Americans'
personal communications--to flow from the private sector into
government databases without any meaningful controls or limitations. It
would explicitly authorize the government to use this information to
``prevent'' crimes that have nothing to do with cybersecurity, such as
firearms possession, arson, and robbery.
These problems are compounded by the fact that this bill requires all
information provided to the government through the information-sharing
regime to be immediately disseminated, which does not allow time for
removal of unnecessary private information, to a number of Federal
agencies--including the National Security Agency and others. We do not
know whether this information would also be shared with the Drug
Enforcement Administration, or the Internal Revenue Service, for
example. We do know this would open a new flow of information to the
Federal Government, without appropriate restrictions on how these
agencies can store, query, or mine this information.
Congress should enact cybersecurity legislation to protect American
businesses and the American people. But we need a cyber security bill,
not a cyber surveillance bill.
There are also provisions in this bill that add entirely new
exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA. These provisions
are completely unnecessary, and have the potential to greatly weaken
government transparency.
Senator Burr's information sharing bill is major legislation that
deserves full debate and a meaningful opportunity for Senators to offer
amendments to improve the bill. It has had neither.
The bill was drafted behind closed doors. It has not been the subject
of any open hearings or public debate. The text of the bill was only
made public by the Intelligence Committee after it was reported to the
Senate floor, and no other committee of jurisdiction--including the
Judiciary Committee--was allowed to consider and improve the bill. I
shared with Chairman Grassley my concern that the Judiciary Committee
should also consider this bill, and Chairman Grassley assured me that
there would be a ``robust and open amendment process'' if this bill
were considered on the Senate floor. I expect that the Senate Homeland
Security Committee received the same assurances.
Senator Burr's attempt to offer the Intelligence Committee's
information sharing bill as an amendment to the
[[Page S4078]]
National Defense Authorization Act runs directly counter to those
assurances. This is not a sincere effort to consider and pass this bill
under regular order. Instead, through a series of procedural maneuvers,
Republican leadership is deliberately preventing any type of meaningful
debate on this bill.
I agree that we must do more to protect our cyber security, but we
should not rush to pass legislation that has significant privacy
implications for millions of Americans. We must be thoughtful and
responsible. Attempting to stifle meaningful debate and pass this bill
as an amendment to the NDAA is the wrong answer. That is not how the
Senate should operate. I urge Senators to vote no on cloture.
Amendment No. 1473, as Modified
Mr. MORAN. Madam President, Senator Vitter spoke about his amendment,
No. 1473, to the fiscal year 2016 National Defense Authorization Act,
which makes certain our U.S. Army is able to maintain the current
number of brigade combat teams to prevent further reductions to the
Army force structure.
I support Senator Vitter's amendment and encourage my colleagues to
do the same so that our military men and women are prepared to face our
Nation's evolving national security threats.
Our Army and soldiers here at home and abroad need all the support we
can give them. In the coming months, I look forward to welcoming home
Major General Funk, who is currently serving in Iraq and leading the
front against ISIS. We must remember that he and the soldiers he
commands need our help and protection, just as they serve and protect
us.
The across-the-board cuts called for in the Budget Control Act,
including a reduced force structure, make no sense when our country
continues to face global threats. The cuts fail to establish priorities
and suggest that every program has equal value, which is not the case.
In my home State of Kansas, these reductions could have a significant
impact on the Intellectual Center of the Army, Fort Leavenworth, and
the Army's First Infantry Division, the Big Red One.
The Big Red One is just one of the many divisions across the country
that could lose entire brigade combat teams, BCTs, degrading our Army's
ability to meet current and emerging challenges such as Russian
aggression, Ebola response operations, and taking on terrorist
organizations like ISIS or Al Shabaab. I mention these specific
examples because they are the most recent situations over the last 12
months that call on our Armed Forces to be ready and resilient.
Without arbitrary budget reductions, the Army would not intentionally
choose to downsize the Army and let valuable soldiers go.
As the cochair for the Senate Defense Communities Caucus, we must
consider our towns and citizens who overwhelmingly support our
military. These reductions make no common sense for our communities and
the soldiers and their families who call our towns home.
These reductions impact the morale of the men and women who serve our
country, as well as their families, at a time when we need their
commitment and readiness the most.
I urge my colleagues to support Senator Vitter's amendment.
Maintaining our Nation's military forces must be our top priority. A
capable and strong national defense is critical to the security of the
United States and is our Federal Government's primary constitutional
responsibility.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. ROUNDS. Madam President, I rise today to encourage my colleagues
to join the bipartisan group of Armed Services Committee members who
support a very important measure for our troops. Last month, we
overwhelmingly voted in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act
for 2016 that the Senate is considering today.
The defense of our Nation is a fundamental responsibility of the
Federal Government, and the annual passage of the NDAA is an important
step in making sure that our servicemembers have what they need to do
their job and to succeed. These brave men and women selflessly
sacrifice everything to keep us safe from the forces of darkness that
wish to do us harm. We owe it to these men and women to wisely work
together to make certain they have the necessary tools to accomplish
their dangerous and demanding missions, and that is what we did in the
Armed Services Committee just a few weeks ago.
Under the leadership of Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed, we
reported a bill out of committee that not only supports our Armed
Forces but makes a host of needed reforms as well, and we did this
overwhelmingly by a bipartisan vote of 22 to 4.
I would like to cite a number of the bill provisions which make our
Nation stronger and which I hope Congress and the President will enact
into law.
Our bill cuts nearly $10 billion in wasteful and duplicative
spending, thereby freeing up additional funds to develop and procure
weapons systems of the future, while also giving our troops in combat
the tools they need today.
This bill also makes important reforms aimed at recruiting and
retaining the All-Volunteer Force that has so consistently defended our
country for over four decades.
The Armed Services Committee produced this legislation by using the
limited and admittedly less than optimal funding tools at its disposal.
For now, the hand we are dealt is limited by the Budget Control Act,
which includes arbitrary spending caps and the threat of sequestration.
So in our bill we are funding our Armed Forces using funds from the
overseas contingency operations account. We are doing so at a level
above that requested by the President for this account. OCO was
included in the Budget Control Act because Members of the 112th
Congress recognized the importance of funding our men and women who
serve on the frontlines.
I believe that many Members of the Senate fervently hope that in the
near future we will be able to fund our government in a fiscally sound
manner, without the irrational budget caps and threat of sequestration
that pervades all of Congress's budgetary deliberations.
I am willing to work with any of my colleagues on either side of the
aisle to fix the Budget Control Act, but until that day comes, we need
to use the funding options we have available to keep America safe. The
legislation before us today does exactly that. We are following the
rules that are in force today.
I am proud of my colleagues who serve with me on the Armed Services
Committee for coming together to achieve a truly bipartisan,
comprehensive bill. Our bill will support our troops and meet the
demands of a military that needs to continue its dynamic evolution in
the face of ever more sophisticated threats. And I am pleased that a
number of provisions I offered are included in the final package we are
debating today.
Now that we have completed our work in committee and Leader McConnell
has brought our bill to the full Senate for debate, we must come
together to pass the NDAA, as the Senate has done each year for more
than five decades. It is no coincidence that the NDAA is the only
legislation to achieve this track record; rather, it indicates the
vital importance that generations of Senate Members have attached to
it. The defense of our country is not a partisan issue.
The bipartisan NDAA sustains what our servicemembers need to succeed
in a world that grows ever more dangerous. From the Russian aggression
in Ukraine and mounting Chinese coercion in Asia to the ugly aggression
of the self-proclaimed Islamic State in the Middle East, new threats
continue to rise throughout the world. These threats are multifaceted,
and our enemy's tactics ever-changing. We must make certain our Armed
Forces can continue to face these challenges, and we must uphold our
commitment to them.
I encourage my colleagues to pass the NDAA, and I encourage our
President to work with Congress to keep Americans safe.
Thank you, Madam President.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Zivotofsky v. Kerry Decision
Mr. COTTON. Madam President, earlier this week, the Supreme Court
[[Page S4079]]
wrongly decided the case of Zivotofsky v. Kerry, an unprecedented
decision which impairs Congress's role in foreign policy and which is
an affront to our close ally Israel.
The Zivotofsky case concerned the executive branch's refusal to
implement a 2002 law passed by Congress and signed by the President.
The law required State Department officials to offer U.S. persons born
in Jerusalem the option of listing Israel as their location of birth on
passports and other consular documents. The State Department's practice
had been to list the place of birth only as Jerusalem, reflecting the
President's policy of not recognizing any national sovereign authority
over the Holy City.
Despite the fact that a President signed the statute into law, the
executive branch has fought tooth and nail for 13 years to free itself
from what it viewed as the heavy burden of writing the word ``Israel''
on one line in a tiny number of U.S. passports, and it argued its case
all the way to the Supreme Court.
In litigating the Zivotofsky case, it is no surprise that the
President outlined a maximalist vision for his power to steer the
Nation's foreign policy, leaving little room for the people's
representatives in Congress. But it was a surprise that the Supreme
Court acquiesced to the President's position.
Before Monday, in the entire 225-year history of our Nation, the
Supreme Court had never sided with a President's blatant refusal to
comply with a duly-passed statute affecting the conduct of foreign
affairs. This is a remarkable and disturbing break with precedent and
one made through a poorly reasoned judicial opinion. The Court
announced that the President possesses an exclusive constitutional
power to recognize other nations and that this power crowds out any
attempt by Congress to legislate in this area, including on how
locations of birth are characterized on passports.
But this conclusion suffers from a number of problems. The Court is
supposed to only find a preclusive executive power where such a power
is clearly committed to the executive branch in our Constitution. But
nowhere in the text of the Constitution is there a reference to a
recognition power, let alone an allocation of such a power to the
President alone. The Court acknowledges this in its opinion, so it
instead finds the recognition power embedded in the constitutional
provision stating that the President ``shall receive Ambassadors and
other public Ministers.'' But, as Alexander Hamilton wrote in
Federalist 69, that provision was understood to be a matter of
``dignity,'' not ``authority'' that would have ``no consequence for the
administration of government.'' In other words, that provision does not
imbue the President with a power; it imposes an obligation on him, and
a ceremonial one at that.
The provision furthermore appears in the section of the Constitution
that imposes an array of obligations on the President, not the section
investing him with any powers. Ironically, it appears right before the
provision that obligates the President to ``take care that the Laws be
faithfully executed.'' I would assume the Framers believed that ``the
Laws'' would include ones regarding passports.
I want to be very clear on this. The recognition power the Court
identified is not enumerated in the text of the Constitution, and no
one at the time of the founding believed it to be included. At the same
time, the Constitution explicitly entrusts Congress with grave
international responsibilities, including the power to declare war and
raise and support armies. These powers place the legislative branch in
a central role in the conduct of our Nation's foreign policy. The
Supreme Court therefore stood on remarkably shaky ground when it
announced a supposedly exclusive Presidential power--one that can
nullify contrary congressional enactments. And it unwisely and
indeterminately expanded the President's unchecked discretion in the
conduct of foreign affairs. That is a potentially dangerous opening,
particularly with the current President. President Obama has shown an
unhealthy penchant for granting unilateral concessions to longtime
enemies abroad. That tendency cannot and must not go unchecked.
Beyond the constitutional infirmities of the Court's opinion, I want
to comment on the broader issue in the background of the Zivotofsky
case.
The executive branch based its refusal to comply with the passport
law on the fear that identifying a person born in Jerusalem as having
been born in Israel would upend the peace process. The State Department
declared that compliance with the law ``would critically compromise''
U.S. efforts to forge an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians,
``significantly harm'' our foreign policy, and ``cause irreversible
damage'' to the role of the United States as an honest broker.
That is embarrassing hyperbole, and it is also complete nonsense. The
role of an honest broker in negotiations is just that--to be honest. So
let's be honest. Israel's seat of government is located in Jerusalem.
Israel administers the entire city. Over 500,000 Israelis live and work
in Jerusalem. The reality is that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel,
and any final agreement--whether or not it includes some sort of
sharing arrangement--will not change that. The United States and the
world should not deny that reality; they should accept it and then
begin the hard work of helping the parties forge a lasting peace.
The role of an honest broker is to ground negotiations in truth. It
is to quell unreasonable reactions and expectations. It is to strip
away issues that are peripheral and focus on those that are essential.
That the President believes the designation of Jerusalem as a part of
Israel on a passport can throw the entire prospect of peace into a
tailspin says much about his confidence in his abilities as a mediator,
and it perhaps also says much about the current political climate in
the Middle East, where deepened divisions would render renewed talks at
this point unproductive.
Ultimately, a resolution of the Israel-Palestinian dispute should be
reached, but progress toward that resolution will not move forward if
the Palestinians remain unreasonably sensitive to peripheral issues
such as passports. It will not move forward if the President is afraid
to speak the truth. It will not move forward if the United States
Congress is restrained from adding a dose of reality to the conduct of
our foreign affairs.
Madam 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. CARDIN. 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. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Transportation Reauthorization Bill
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, we have 2 more weeks remaining before
the scheduled district work period with regard to the Fourth of July.
Then, when we come back from there, in the next work period there will
be another deadline. The deadline I am referring to is the enactment of
a 6-year transportation reauthorization bill.
We have been talking about finding a 6-year reauthorization solution
now for over a year--well over a year. We have been working with short-
term extensions. We had a 10-month extension that expired just
recently. We did another 2-month extension with a commitment that our
committees would work to come together, that Democrats and Republicans
would work to come together for a 6-year reauthorization of the
transportation programs for this country.
My constituents are frustrated. I am frustrated. You see, I commute
between Baltimore and Washington every day. This community or this area
has the second worst traffic congestion in the country. We desperately
need a more robust Federal partner in dealing with the transportation
challenges of my State and of every State in this country. We need to
move forward with transit projects. Every person we can get to use mass
transit is one less car on the road.
It helps all of us. It helps our transportation infrastructure and
the wear and tear. It helps our environment. We have bridges that
literally must be replaced. In the southern part of my State, the Nice
Bridge desperately
[[Page S4080]]
needs to be replaced. That costs money. You need a Federal partner to
do that. We have road maintenance and expansion issues in every State
in this country.
We have safety concerns that are not being addressed today. I would
like to take my colleagues to some of the overpasses in Baltimore that
need to be upgraded for the purposes of safety. Route 1 through College
Park desperately needs attention. In my State, there is Georgia Avenue
and Randolph Road in Montgomery County and 301, a major artery on the
Eastern Shore of Maryland, which need real serious safety upgrades that
are important.
Each one of these is extremely expensive. I know that every Senator
could list dozens of projects in their own State that need to move
forward for safety reasons. Then there is the issue of jobs. We all
know that without the predictability of a 6-year program,
transportation construction is delayed. That costs us not only
construction jobs--and there are literally millions of construction
jobs that depend upon the Federal partnership in transportation--but
the economic impact of a reauthorization of the surface transportation
program. So many projects in Maryland are affected by this.
But let me talk about one part of Maryland that does not always get
the same attention, and that is the western part of our State. It is
not where the real population of Maryland is located. But the
completion of the Appalachia Highway, the north-south highway, is
critically important to the economic future of western Maryland--and I
might tell you also Pennsylvania and West Virginia. We need to get that
done.
Quite frankly, without a long-term reauthorization of the surface
transportation program, I do not know if we will get that done. That
means jobs. That means our economy. We know that we have to be more
competitive as a country. We know we are involved in global
competition. The countries that we compete with are putting much more
of their economy into transportation than we are into infrastructure.
We must do a better job.
Well, the Federal partnership in constructing the roads, the bridges,
and the transit systems is called MAP-21. It expires at the end of
July--again. This is not the first time. We have not reauthorized the
6-year program for a long time. We need a 6-year program. Why? Because
when you enter into a transportation project, it is more than just a 2-
month commitment or a 10-month commitment. Our States cannot go into
these multiyear projects unless they know they have a Federal partner.
The only way they know they have a Federal partner is if we give them
the certainty of a 6-year reauthorization bill.
So it is critically important. So what should we do? Starting now,
the committees of jurisdiction need to have hearings and working
sessions and report out legislation. That should be done now. There
needs to be a commitment as to what schedule will be followed so we do
not miss this deadline. That was the commitment that the leadership
gave us--that we will get this done in this 2-month period.
Well, unless our committees are working to come together with
legislation--in the Environment and Public Works Committee, which both
the Presiding Officer and I serve on, we need to bring out a bill. We
have done it before. The Senate Finance Committee, which I serve on, is
responsible for the financial aspects on how we get together on that.
I am going to come back to that in one moment. Of course the banking
committee is responsible for the transit section, as are other
committees involved. But let me make an observation; that is, yes, we
have to come out with a 6-year reauthorization. That is critical. We do
not want any more short-term extensions. Secondly, it has to be a
robust program.
We know that if we just reauthorize at the current level, it will be
inadequate. We know that. We know that, each of us in talking to our
State transportation agencies. They tell you they need a more robust
Federal partnership and that the challenges today are more expensive.
And we have delayed for so long that it is even more expensive. So we
need to come to grips with a 6-year reauthorization but at a level that
will allow for a stronger Federal partnership.
The President's number is $478 billion over 6 years. I think that is
a reasonable level. If we just have a level-funded adjusted-for-
inflation program, it would be $331 billion. I would hope that we would
recognize that the additional $147 billion the President is talking
about over 6 years is a modest increase but an important increase to
the Federal share to deal with our urgent needs of safety, economic
development, jobs, and competitiveness.
Now, here is the problem. As to the current revenues in the
transportation trust fund, if we just use the $331 billion, which is
basically a freeze adjusted for inflation for the next 6 years, there
is a $97 billion gap. We do not have enough money projected in the
transportation trust fund for a basically stand-still 6-year
reauthorization. We are $97 billion short.
So we need to come to grips as to how we are going to fill that void.
I said I serve on the Senate Finance Committee. There are lots of
revenues that go into the trust fund that we should look at adjusting.
There are other ideas about how we can bring in transportation
revenues. I hope we look at all of that. Then there has been the
recommendation that has been done by both Democrats and Republicans. We
have to find a way to bridge the gap here. It does not do any good if
we just have one party that agrees on how to deal with this. We all
have to deal with it.
It is incumbent upon the Republican leadership to get engaged in that
debate--and the Democratic leadership. We have already said that we are
open to the current revenues that go into the transportation trust
fund. But there is one area that seems to be in agreement between
Democrats and Republicans, and that is looking at international reform.
We have all talked about the fact that we have a lot of earnings from
our corporations--American corporations--that are trapped overseas
because the companies have made a decision not to repatriate the money
back into the United States because it would be subject to a higher
U.S. corporate tax rate.
They do not want to pay that higher tax. That is a business decision
made by U.S. businesses. Now, obviously, the way to solve that is to
reform our business taxes here. Senator Thune and I are cochairing a
working group of the Senate Finance Committee to try to come to grips
with that. It is going to be difficult for us to do that. You heard the
numbers I have already given you.
But every 1-percent reduction in the corporate tax rate costs about
$100 billion over 10 years. If you include relief for those who pay the
personal tax rates for their business income, it is probably closer to
$150 or $160 billion to get a 1-percent reduction in the corporate tax
rate. So that is going to be challenging.
In the meantime, there have been recommendations in order to unleash
those funds: Why don't we find a charge that is less than the full
corporate tax for those revenues that are returned to the United
States? We have Democrats and Republicans working together on a bill,
including the President, who has submitted that in his budget. He has
submitted a toll charge for the revenues that are trapped overseas that
corporations would have to pay.
That toll charge would be at a 14-percent rate. Then he has projected
a minimum tax on foreign earnings at 19 percent that would have to be
paid with certain reforms on trying to move the United States more to a
territorial corporate tax rate. I mention that because I think there is
interest by both Democrats and Republicans to take a look at reforming
the way we tax foreign income for American companies so that we can
have greater economic activity here in the United States. These
proposals generate a significant amount of revenue, both one-time-only
and permanent revenue.
I mention that because we could take a look at the international tax
reform proposals. Democrats and Republicans have both submitted
proposals on this. That could help us get to a robust 6-year
reauthorization of the surface transportation bill. We could get that.
My reason for mentioning it right now is this: Let's talk about it.
Let's have the Republicans come to the table and talk about it also.
Let's not just wait these next 2 weeks, go into the work
[[Page S4081]]
period, come back, and be faced with another deadline with no game plan
on how we are going to resolve it and say: We have to pass another
short-term extension so we can get together and talk about it.
Let's start talking about this now. I tell you that there are viable
options. The one thing I found is that Democrats and Republicans agree
that infrastructure is important and we have to have a stronger program
in this country for infrastructure. I always enjoy hearing from Senator
Inhofe, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, a
person with whom I came to the Congress. He says frequently that he may
be a conservative but when it comes to infrastructure spending, it is
important that we have a robust Federal program.
Under his leadership and under Senator Boxer's leadership, we have
been able to bring out bills from the Environment and Public Works
Committee to reauthorize a 6-year program. The challenge is this: Can
we find the revenue? Of course, there we need to work together as
Democrats and Republicans. So I come to the floor to urge my
colleagues: Let's work together. That is what the American people
expect us to do. They expect us to work together to solve the problem.
I don't think there is a Member of the Senate who would disagree that
we should have a robust reauthorization of a 6-year transportation
program for this country, that our States need it, that our country
needs it, and that we need it for our economy. Let's put aside our own
individual differences. Let's sit down and work out a bill. Let's start
working it out now. Let's not wait until the next deadline.
I urge my colleagues to do this. That is what the American people
want us to do. That is what we need to do to move this 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. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Nuclear Agreement With Iran
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I know we are on the national defense
bill and, of course, national defense is ultimately about national
security, and one of the concerns I have about national security and
our national interests is the challenge of a nuclear-armed Iran.
I came to the floor last week to say that when it comes to dealing
with Iran--as we count down to the deadline for an agreement--the truth
is always elusive. I said then that international inspectors reported
that Tehran's stockpile of nuclear fuel, rather than decreasing,
actually increased by 20 percent.
Now, in the last days before the agreement deadline is reached, David
Albright, a well-respected expert on Iran's nuclear program, in an
article for the Institute for Science and International Security, says
that the State Department's explanation of Iran's newly produced 3.5
percent enriched uranium falls short and that the State Department
seemed to be making excuses for the fact that Iran has not reduced its
enrichment level, which they agreed to do in the Joint Plan of Action.
The fact is uranium enrichment, when taken to the maximum, can lead to
bomb material. So reducing the enrichment level is critical, in terms
of possible breakout time in Iran's ability to develop a nuclear
weapon.
Albright says:
The core of the State Department's explanation in the last
few days appears to be that Iran meets the conditions of the
Joint Plan of Action once it feeds newly produced low
enriched uranium hexafluoride gas into the uranium conversion
plan at Esfahan. . . .
Now, to bring this down into lay terms, this conversion plant is
there to take this enriched uranium--that if further enriched, can lead
to bomb material--to transform the enriched uranium that can be
prepared for potential nuclear material to an oxide form, and that is a
form in which the bomb threat is dramatically reduced.
But the Esfahan plant didn't even become operational until the fall
of 2014, a year after it was supposed to have opened, and--conveniently
for the Iranians--it is having operational difficulties, making it
highly unlikely Iran can convert the low-enriched uranium hexafluoride,
which we are concerned about, into enriched uranium dioxide used for
making nuclear power reactor fuel.
Put simply, at the end of the day, once again Iran will not have
lived up to what they agreed to.
Now, we knew from the beginning it was going to be a challenge. We
knew it was going to be difficult for the Iranians to blend down their
nuclear fuel, rather than to ship it out to another country, which so
far they have refused to do. We knew it would be a concern if they
weren't able to convert low-enriched uranium hexafluoride into the
enriched uranium dioxide--the one in which, obviously, we have far less
concerns. And, frankly, because that is obviously a problem, I am
concerned, because as the Albright article states, ``The amounts of LEU
amount to about 4,000 kilograms of 3.5 LEU hexafluoride, enough to
potentially make 2 to 3 nuclear weapons if further enriched to weapons-
grade uranium.''
Two to three nuclear weapons if further enriched to nuclear-grade
uranium. Now, I am concerned this is more blue smoke and mirrors that
overlooked the real ambitions of an untrustworthy negotiating partner.
I am concerned Iran is still saying it will not ship out excess low-
enriched uranium but somehow blend it down and store it at the plant,
which can't possibly blend down enough at this point to meet the
requirements under the Joint Plan of Action.
I am concerned this is more of an issue than the administration is
willing to concede, particularly if, at the end, there is no deal and
we, through sanctions relief, paid them to convert and then they walk
away with massive amounts of low-enriched uranium that can be fed into
their centrifuges and be easily converted to highly enriched uranium
and on to weapons-grade uranium.
According to David Albright:
Based on the IAEA's report--
That is the International Atomic Energy Administration's report to
member states--
the problems in making enriched uranium oxide were apparent
by the fall of 2014 . . . but the Administration decided not
to make a major issue about the lack of oxide production.
The article goes on to say:
Concluding that Iran has met the Joint Plan of Action
condition to convert to oxide newly-enriched up to 5 percent
is incorrect.
And it further says:
In this case, the potential violation refers to Iran not
producing the enriched oxide at the end of the initial six
month period of the Joint Plan of Action and again after its
first extension.
This is a continuing quote:
The choosing of a weaker condition which must be met cannot
be a good precedent for interpreting more important
provisions in a final deal. Moreover, it tends to confirm the
view of critics that future violations of a long-term deal
will be downplayed for the sake of generating or maintaining
support for the deal.
It says:
The administration relied on a technical remedy that Iran
had not demonstrated it could carry out.
The article concludes:
The State Department has some explaining to do.
Now, the enrichment issue is one thing, but then there is the
recently released U.N. Security Council report on a whole host of the
existing Security Council resolutions and mandates as it relates to
Iran, and there are other problems as well. They are well documented in
this just recently released report; that Iran has continued to deny the
legitimacy of Security Council resolutions not addressed in the Joint
Plan of Action; that Iran's arms transfers have actively continued,
raising concerns in particular in the region; that cases of
noncompliance with the travel ban have also been observed; that Iran
has continued certain nuclear activities, including enrichment and work
at Arak; and that there is no progress by Iran in addressing possible
military dimensions that had been agreed to be addressed by Iran and
the International Atomic Energy Agency. The most troubling relates to
allegations of large-scale high- explosives experimentation at Parchin.
The report goes on to talk about Iran's missile technology. Here we
have a sense from the U.N. Security Council's report where it speaks to
Iran's missile capability. And I am using a
[[Page S4082]]
map here that I give credit to the New York Times for to demonstrate
what that means. Iran has two kinds of ballistic missiles capable of
delivering a nuclear weapon, according to the report--the Ghadr
missile, which is a variation of the liquid-fuel Shahab-3, with a range
of about 1,600 kilometers, or 995 miles, and the other is the Sejil
missile, with a range of about 2,000 kilometers, or about 1,250 miles.
The first missile encompasses most of the gulf and certainly our ally,
the State of Israel, as well as Afghanistan and Pakistan, not to
mention Turkey, among others, and then the longer range missile
actually goes as far as into Europe. And this is missile technology
that is still in development. As the U.N. Security Council report
points out, we can see the range of Iran's missiles and the potential
military dimensions of its pursuits.
Then there is the issue of arms embargo violations and the transfer
of conventional arms. For whatever reasons--and the report speculates
that maybe member states, meaning member countries of the United
Nations, don't want to upset the apple cart of the negotiations--there
have been no reports--even in the midst of very clear violations taking
place, and those have been largely reported--from member states of the
U.N. about the transfer of conventional arms by Iran. But the U.N.
report nevertheless says that ``the panel notes media reports pointing
to continued military support and alleged arms transfers to Syria,
Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen, and to Hezbollah and Hamas.''
The report also says that a shipment of arms was confirmed by Massoud
Barzani, president of Kurdistan's regional government, who said: ``We
asked for weapons and Iran was the first country to provide [them].''
This is a clear violation if ever there were one.
According to the report, some member states informed the panel that
Iran's nuclear procurement trends and circumvention techniques remain
basically unchanged. In fact, Great Britain informed the U.N. panel
that they are aware of an active Iranian nuclear procurement network
associated with Iran's centrifuge technology company known as TESA and
Kalay Electric Company, which are listed sanction entities under the
U.N. Security Council resolutions.
The report further says that member states have reported on the
methods Iran has used and continues to use to carry out financial
transactions below the radar to conceal any connection to Iran. Some
states that import oil, for example, have authorized their banks to
receive payments into accounts belonging to the Central Bank of Iran.
The funds were reportedly paid out against invoices for exports of
goods to Iran although the goods were never exported, meaning money was
taken out and ultimately made its way to Iran even though they were not
for payment of anything because nothing was shipped.
The simple fact is--and there are many other examples in the U.N.
Security Council report, to which I commend my colleagues' attention--
we can't trust Iran to abide by its agreements or to abide by U.N.
resolutions even when they are in the midst of negotiations, when you
would think they would be behaving the best. One would think they would
want to put their best foot forward. Why would we think we can trust
them if they are violating U.N. Security Council resolutions? That is
the world--not the United States, not even the P5+1, but the world--
telling them they can't do these things or they violate an
international order. So why would we think we could trust them not to
enrich uranium, not to pursue a weapons program, and not to find any
way possible to renege on any agreement they reach when they are
violating existing Security Council resolutions?
As I have said, I will come to the floor to reiterate my skepticism
that Iran will not do all it can to pursue their agenda. I believe,
rather, they will try to find a way to pursue their agenda, to play
fast and loose with the truth, to hide the truth, to cover it up, and
to buy time. Iran needs to be held responsible for its commitments--
forget about its work; its commitments. There can be no slippage, no
delays, no obfuscation. That is how they succeeded in the past in
bringing themselves to be on the verge of becoming a threshold nuclear
state.
So where do we go from here? It remains to be seen whether compliance
with that which has already been agreed to by the Iranians--even at
this early stage while the world is watching--can be realized or will
it be explained away.
I intend to come to the floor again and again to hold Iran
accountable for its actions and to keep a laser-like focus on the
mullahs in Tehran. I fear that when that spotlight is off, when the
press is gone, when the agreement is out of the headlines and the
curtain closes on the P5+1 talks, Iran will pull back into the shadows.
When that happens and if it goes wrong, what will we do then?
We haven't seen the final agreement, so we will have to wait to make
a final judgment on it. But if the final agreement follows in the line
of the framework agreement, then we will have a set of circumstances
where we will not be solving the problem. I think some of the experts
who were before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday in a
briefing admitted to the fact--and one or two of them are proponents of
an agreement--they said this does not solve the problem but only kicks
the problem down the road.
Those are hard choices no matter what, but I would rather confront a
country that is on the path to nuclear weapons before it gets it and
when it is at its weakest point, not when it becomes a country at its
stronger point, with far more resources, with sanctions that have
largely dissipated. And even with snapback provisions--which I think we
should have, but several years down the road when the world has now
engaged Iran in doing business and Iran has risen in its economy--its
economy has already stopped its free-fall just on the basis of
expectations--and it decides possibly to break out 3 or 4 years down
the road, putting all of those international sanctions back together,
as someone who was the author of those sanctions here in the Congress,
I can tell you that is going to take a lot more work. There is no
instantaneous snapback: Oh, we will put the sanctions back and they
will have effect immediately. You have to tell the world, you have to
give them notice that, in fact, there are sanctions back in effect. You
have to tell companies now doing business and give them time to
disinvest from those businesses. By the time you add that, if
experience is a good barometer, we gave at a minimum 6 months' lead
time to tell the world this is going to be a sanctionable activity, and
by the time we actually pursued enforcement and implementation of
those, it was far beyond--close to a year. Well, that happens to be the
time we are actually vying for breakout time.
So I am going to continue to come to the floor to continue to shine a
spotlight on the challenges we have with Iran and on the shortcomings
of the interim agreement as we hope for a good final agreement. But I
will use the refrain that the administration at one time used, which is
that no agreement is better than a bad agreement, and that is what my
concern is--that we are headed toward a bad agreement.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The Senator from Arizona.
Earmarks
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a problem that,
despite a congressional ban on the practice, continues to plague our
budget. That problem is earmarks.
Back in 1986--just a little history lesson here--as Congress engaged
in a last-minute scramble to fund the government, a Republican
Congressman from Pennsylvania slipped an earmark into a massive
spending bill. He turned a small exhibit of steam-powered trains, known
as Steamtown USA, into a national park. Three decades, nearly $100
million, and one congressional earmark ban later, that project
continues to cost taxpayers millions of dollars annually. The bridge to
nowhere, the North Carolina teapot museum, the indoor rainforest in
Iowa, and, yes, Steamtown USA, are among the many egregious earmarks
that led fed-up taxpayers to press for a ban on this kind of spending.
Like triceratops and velociraptors, earmarks that were declared
extinct, fossilized relics of a bygone era, are somehow making a
reappearance. What taxpayers and many in Congress didn't
[[Page S4083]]
realize is that despite the successful ban on earmarks, we are still
paying millions of dollars for the old ones. Through unexpended funds,
carve-outs in the Tax Code, and grant awards, spending on past earmark
projects and their recipients still roam the Federal budget landscape.
Today, I am releasing a report--``Jurassic Pork''--which will
highlight the fossilized pork projects that are still embedded or
buried deep in the Federal budget. It should serve as a reminder of the
past scandals that brought about the extinction of earmarks and serve
as a warning that the cost of earmarking often outlives the practice
itself.
``Jurassic Pork'' digs into just two dozen of the many earmarked
projects and recipients of congressional bounty that continue to cost
taxpayers millions of dollars.
Take for example the aptly named VelociRFTA, a bus rapid transit
system in Colorado that covers the 40 miles between Aspen and Glenwood
that began as an $810,000 earmark. Since the earmark ban took place in
2010, thanks to continued Federal funding, this project--this vestige--
has cost taxpayers $36 million.
Also highlighted in the report is the American Ballet Theater, which
supplemented a flow of Federal grant money with more than $800,000 in
earmarked funds from a Member of Congress who also happened to perform
in one of the group's recent productions.
Then there are the 6,000 unspent highway earmarks representing $5.9
billion that sit idle in the Department of Transportation account.
These include pork projects such as the $600,000 Upper Delaware Scenic
Byway Visitor Center in Cochecton, NY. Unfortunately for taxpayers, the
visitor center ended up being built in Narrowsburg. Because the
location was specified as Cochecton, the money will likely continue to
sit on the Federal Government's ledger.
Now, within these unspent transportation earmarks, there is a smaller
group that is often referred to as ``orphan'' earmarks. These are
earmarks that have had less than 10 percent of their expended--or their
anticipated funds spent over 10 years. According to the Congressional
Research Service, 70 earmarks worth more than $120 million remain on
the books, and in August 2015, more than 1,200 earmarks from the last
major highway bill that was passed in 2005 will officially become
orphan earmarks. These represent $2 billion in yet-to-be-spent funds.
With the near bankrupt highway trust fund, Congress needs to find a
way to permanently park these unspent funds. To that end, I have also
introduced a Jurassic Pork Act, which will rescind funding for orphan
earmarks and will return this money to the highway trust fund. We all
know the highway trust fund could use it about now.
Now, like John Hammond, the billionaire CEO of the failed theme park
in the first ``Jurassic Park'' film, not everyone in Congress is
content to leave these as relics of the past. Not a year after the
earmark ban was implemented in the Senate, the then-majority leader
proclaimed: ``I've done earmarks all my career, and I'm happy I've done
earmarks all my career.''
Others from both sides of the aisle have argued that a return to
earmarking would help to lard up or incentivize votes. But taxpayers
don't exist for political horse trading or as a reward for powerful
Members to dole out as tributes. Taxpayers need to remain vigilant
against all this kind of parochial spending, and we cannot return to
pork as we knew it.
The moratorium on earmarks in 2010 didn't put an end to these kind of
shenanigans. But as readers of ``Jurassic Pork'' will see, the spending
on their legacy continues. Taxpayers have already seen the end of this
movie. We don't need to be treated to a sequel.
Mr. President, 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.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Amendment No. 1473, as Modified
Mr. LEE. I ask for regular order with respect to Vitter amendment No.
1473.
Amendment No. 1687 to Amendment No. 1473, as Modified
Mr. LEE. I send a second-degree amendment, Lee amendment No. 1687, to
the desk as a second-degree amendment to Vitter amendment No. 1473 and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Utah [Mr. Lee] proposes an amendment
numbered 1687 to amendment No. 1473, as modified.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide for the protecton and recovery of the greater
sage-grouse, the conservation of lesser prairie-chicken, and the
removal of endangered species status for the American burying beetle)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ___. PROTECTION AND RECOVERY OF GREATER SAGE GROUSE.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``Federal resource management plan'' means--
(A) a land use plan prepared by the Bureau of Land
Management for public lands pursuant to section 202 of the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.
1712); or
(B) a land and resource management plan prepared by the
Forest Service for National Forest System lands pursuant to
section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources
Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604).
(2) The term ``Greater Sage Grouse'' means a sage grouse of
the species Centrocercus urophasianus.
(3) The term ``State management plan'' means a State-
approved plan for the protection and recovery of the Greater
Sage Grouse.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is--
(1) to facilitate implementation of State management plans
over a period of multiple, consecutive sage grouse life
cycles; and
(2) to demonstrate the efficacy of the State management
plans for the protection and recovery of the Greater Sage
Grouse.
(c) Endangered Species Act of 1973 Findings.--
(1) Delay required.--Any finding by the Secretary of the
Interior under clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of section
4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.
1533(b)(3)(B)) with respect to the Greater Sage Grouse made
during the period beginning on September 30, 2015, and ending
on the date of the enactment of this Act shall have no force
or effect in law or in equity, and the Secretary of the
Interior may not make any such finding during the period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending
on September 30, 2025.
(2) Effect on other laws.--The delay imposed by paragraph
(1) is, and shall remain, effective without regard to any
other statute, regulation, court order, legal settlement, or
any other provision of law or in equity.
(3) Effect on conservation status.--Until the date
specified in paragraph (1), the conservation status of the
Greater Sage Grouse shall remain warranted for listing under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),
but precluded by higher-priority listing actions pursuant to
clause (iii) of section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B)).
(d) Coordination of Federal Land Management and State
Conservation and Management Plans.--
(1) Prohibition on modification of federal resource
management plans.--In order to foster coordination between a
State management plan and Federal resource management plans
that affect the Greater Sage Grouse, upon notification by the
Governor of a State with a State management plan, the
Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture
may not amend or otherwise modify any Federal resource
management plan applicable to Federal lands in the State in a
manner inconsistent with the State management plan for a
period, to be specified by the Governor in the notification,
of at least five years beginning on the date of the
notification.
(2) Retroactive effect.--In the case of any State that
provides notification under paragraph (1), if any amendment
or modification of a Federal resource management plan
applicable to Federal lands in the State was issued during
the one-year period preceding the date of the notification
and the amendment or modification altered management of the
Greater Sage Grouse or its habitat, implementation and
operation of the amendment or modification shall be stayed to
the extent that the amendment or modification is inconsistent
with the State management plan. The Federal resource
management plan, as in effect immediately before the
amendment or modification, shall apply instead with respect
to management of the Greater Sage Grouse and its habitat, to
the extent consistent with the State management plan.
[[Page S4084]]
(3) Determination of inconsistency.--Any disagreement
regarding whether an amendment or other modification of a
Federal resource management plan is inconsistent with a State
management plan shall be resolved by the Governor of the
affected State.
(e) Relation to National Environmental Policy Act of
1969.--With regard to any Federal action consistent with a
State management plan, any findings, analyses, or conclusions
regarding the Greater Sage Grouse or its habitat under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4331 et
seq.) shall not have a preclusive effect on the approval or
implementation of the Federal action in that State.
(f) Reporting Requirement.--Not later than one year after
the date of the enactment of this Act and annually thereafter
through 2021, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary
of Agriculture shall jointly submit to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee
on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives a report
on the Secretaries' implementation and effectiveness of
systems to monitor the status of Greater Sage Grouse on
Federal lands under their jurisdiction.
(g) Judicial Review.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of statute or regulation, this section, including
determinations made under subsection (d)(3), shall not be
subject to judicial review.
SEC. ___. IMPLEMENTATION OF LESSER PRAIRIE-CHICKEN RANGE-WIDE
CONSERVATION PLAN AND OTHER CONSERVATION
MEASURES.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Candidate conservation agreements.--The terms
``Candidate Conservation Agreement'' and ``Candidate and
Conservation Agreement With Assurances'' have the meaning
given those terms in--
(A) the announcement of the Department of the Interior and
the Department of Commerce entitled ``Announcement of Final
Policy for Candidate Conservation Agreements with
Assurances'' (64 Fed. Reg. 32726 (June 17, 1999)); and
(B) sections 17.22(d) and 17.32(d) of title 50, Code of
Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of
this Act).
(2) Range-wide plan.--The term ``Range-Wide Plan'' means
the Lesser Prairie-Chicken Range-Wide Conservation Plan of
the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, as
endorsed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service on
October 23, 2013, and published for comment on January 29,
2014 (79 Fed. Reg. 4652).
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(b) Prohibition on Treatment as Threatened or Endangered
Species.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any prior action by the
Secretary, the lesser prairie-chicken shall not be treated as
a threatened species or endangered species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
before January 31, 2021.
(2) Prohibition on proposal.--Effective beginning on
January 31, 2021, the lesser prairie-chicken may not be
treated as a threatened species or endangered species under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
unless the Secretary publishes a determination, based on the
totality of the scientific evidence, that conservation (as
that term is used in that Act) under the Range-Wide Plan and
the agreements, programs, and efforts referred to in
subsection (c) have not achieved the conservation goals
established by the Range-Wide Plan.
(c) Monitoring of Progress of Conservation Programs.--The
Secretary shall monitor and annually submit to Congress a
report on progress in conservation of the lesser prairie-
chicken under the Range-Wide Plan and all related--
(1) Candidate Conservation Agreements and Candidate and
Conservation Agreements With Assurances;
(2) other Federal conservation programs administered by the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land
Management, and the Department of Agriculture;
(3) State conservation programs; and
(4) private conservation efforts.
SEC. ___. REMOVAL OF ENDANGERED SPECIES STATUS FOR AMERICAN
BURYING BEETLE.
Notwithstanding the final rule of the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service entitled ``Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for
the American Burying Beetle'' (54 Fed. Reg. 29652 (July 13,
1989)), the American burying beetle shall not be listed as a
threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species
Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. McCAIN. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The clerk will continue to call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk continued with the call of the
roll.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am fully aware that we are not going to
be able to get past a unanimous consent request, but I wanted to make
sure the Chair knew and others know that we have an amendment that I
will do the best I can to bring out.
It is an amendment that already has 21 cosponsors. There is a
provision in the Senate bill that was put in by the Senate that is not
in the House bill that has to do with commissaries. It is viewed upon
as privatizing commissaries. It is not really that. It is an attempt to
evaluate the idea of the commissaries being privatized by using five
commissaries as test cells to see what kind of result we would get if
we did privatize them.
What we are doing with my amendment is taking it back--taking that
language out--in order to go ahead with an assessment before we do
that. It wouldn't make sense to me that if we wanted to get this done,
even if we felt very passionately about privatizing, that we would do
it before we had an assessment. So the assessment would be first.
We had a lot of discussion about this in the Senate Armed Services
Committee. As I said, we now have 21 cosponsors who would like to
reverse this so we can do the assessment and then make the
determination.
It is kind of interesting, even though most people say privatizing is
not going to actually save or make any money, the amendment simply
requires the assessment on privatizing before we make any significant
changes to our servicemembers' privatized commissary benefits. This is
something that is very popular among members of our service, wives, and
husbands, when surveyed last year. Approximately, 95 percent of the
servicemembers were using the commissaries to purchase household goods
to achieve needed savings in their family budgets with a 91-percent
satisfaction rate. We don't get 91 percent satisfaction rates around
here very often. The language in this bill as it is now ignores the
recommendations made by the Military Compensation and Retirement
Modernization Commission that we are all very familiar with. In the
report released in January, it specifically stated, in recommendation
No. 8, ``to protect access and savings to DOD commissaries and
exchanges.'' Well, that is exactly what we want to do.
I have a very impressive list, which I will not read, of 41
organizations and associations, including labor unions, the Gold Star
Widows, American Veterans, and others, and I ask unanimous consent that
this list be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Organizations Supporting Inhofe/Mikulski Amendment
1. National Military and Veterans Alliance
2. American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial
Organizations Teamsters
3. The Coalition to Save Our Military Shopping Benefits
4. National Guard Association of the United States
5. Military Officers Association of America
6. American Federation of Government Employees
7. Veterans of Foreign Wars
8. Armed Forces Marketing Council
9. American Logistics Association
10. American Military Retirees Association
11. American Military Society
12. American Retirees Association
13. Army and Navy Union
14. Gold Star Widows
15. International Brotherhood of Teamsters
16. Military Order of Foreign Wars
17. Military Order of the Purple Heart
18. National Association for Uniformed Services
19. National Defense Committee
20. Society of Military Widows
21. The Flag and General Officers Network
22. Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors
23. Uniformed Services Disabled Retirees
24. Vietnam Veterans of America
25. Fleet Reserve Association
26. National Military Family Association
27. Military Officers Association of America
28. The Retired Enlisted Association
29. Association of the United States Army
30. American Veterans
31. United States Army Warrant Officers Association
32. Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America
33. Association of the United States Navy
[[Page S4085]]
34. Air Force Sergeants Association
35. Military Partners and Families Coalition
36. National Association for Uniformed Services
37. American Military Retirees Association
38. The American Military Partner Association
39. American Logistics Association
40. Reserve Officer Association
41. Air Force Association
Mr. INHOFE. I also have a synopsis of letters of support that is from
six different organizations, including the Military Officers
Association of America; the Armed Forces Marketing Council; the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters; the American Federation of
Government Employees, AFL-CIO; the American Military Retirees
Association; and saveourbenefit.org.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the synopsis of these six
letters representing these organizations be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Military Officers Association of America: ``This amendment
requires a study in lieu of the Senate Armed Service
Committee (SASC) language that mandate a privatization pilot
in at least five commissaries chosen from the commissary
agency's largest U.S. markets. MOAA commends this approach.
To conduct a privatization pilot without proper assessment
could result in unintended consequences, putting this highly
valued benefit at risk The commissary is a vital part of
military compensation providing a significant benefit to
military families. The average family of four who shops
exclusively at the commissary sees a savings of up to 30
percent.''
Armed Forces Marketing Council: ``What is at stake for
military families: Loss of up to 30% savings on a market
basket of products for military families. That equates to
over $4000 per year for a family of four. Loss of jobs for
military family members. Over 60 percent of DeCA employees
are military related and their jobs are transferable,
allowing them to retain their positions and seniority when
the military provides permanent change of station orders.
Families would be required to pay sales taxes on groceries.
Loss of a cherished benefit that is enjoyed by 95% of the
active force. Loss of traffic at commissaries will adversely
impact sales in military exchanges by up to 40%. This will
diminish the dividend that supports quality of life programs
for military families.''
International Brotherhood of Teamsters: ``The commissary
system is a vital benefit to our nation's active military,
their families, and veterans across the country. The system
provides thousands of jobs for American Teamsters in the
warehouse, shipping, and food distribution industries.
Commissaries also provide a needed benefit for military
spouses and family members, who make up nearly 30 percent of
Department of Commissary employees.''
American Federation of Government Employees (AFL-CIO):
``The Department of Defense's (DoD) commissaries and
exchanges (Army and Air Force Exchange Service, AAFES) are an
earned benefit treasured by military families and an
important contributor to their quality of life. The modest
cost of providing military families with inexpensive but
essential goods and services is almost invisible in the
Department's overall budget. Given that privatization of the
commissaries has been repeatedly rejected by the executive
and legislative branches and that this option was explicitly
not recommended by a recent commission which looked
comprehensively at the commissaries, it makes no sense to
begin to privatize the commissaries before understanding the
impact on costs and services as well as morale and
recruitment. Senator Inhofe's amendment would wisely direct
DoD to study the impact of privatization, and the Government
Accountability Office to review the DoD's finding, before the
Department is directed to privatize the commissaries.''
American Military Retirees Association: ``The American
Military Retirees Association believes commissary and
exchanges are a vital part of military pay and compensation.
Ninety percent of the military community uses these benefits
and consistently rank[s] them as a top compensation benefit,
yielding returns that far outweigh taxpayer support. They
also provide critical jobs for military families and
veterans--over 60 percent of employees are military
affiliated--and provide healthy living alternatives both
stateside and overseas.''
SaveOurBenefit.org: ``The Inhofe-Mikulski amendment offers
a sensible, pragmatic and thoughtful approach to examining
private operation of military commissaries. Senators Inhofe
and Mikulski are right. Study before deciding to implement.
Nearly 40 organizations--representing tens of millions of
active duty, Guard and Reserve, retirees, military families,
veterans and survivors--agree. The Military Compensation and
Retirement Modernization Commission (MCRMC) surveyed the
private sector and found no interest among major retailers to
operate on military bases. The Commission, chartered by the
Senate, found that commissaries were worth preserving and
recommended changes to the current structure--not
privatization.''
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my intention, as soon as we get to
the point where we can get into the queue and get unanimous consent to
set the current business aside--it would be my intention to do that to
consider this amendment.
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.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture vote on amendment No. 1569 be
moved to 3 p.m. today. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to
call up the following amendments: Ernst No. 1549, Gillibrand No. 1578,
Whitehouse No. 1693, Fischer-Booker No. 1825, Collins No. 1660, Cardin
No. 1468; that at 11 a.m. on Tuesday, June 16, the Senate vote in
relation to the following amendments in the order listed: Fischer-
Booker No. 1825; Collins No. 1660; Cardin No. 1468; Gillibrand No.
1578; Ernst No. 1549; Whitehouse No. 1693; Durbin No. 1559, as
modified; and Paul No. 1543; that there be no second-degree amendments
in order to any of these amendments prior to the votes, and that the
Gillibrand, Ernst, Whitehouse, Durbin, and Paul amendments require a
60-affirmative-vote threshold for adoption; also, that there be 2
minutes equally divided between the votes and that all votes after the
first be 10 minutes in length.
I further ask that notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture vote on the
McCain substitute amendment No. 1463 occur at 3 p.m. on Tuesday, June
16.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Democratic leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I
initially say to my impatient friend, he has to be patient and allow me
to say a few words. During the short time we have been in the minority,
we have behaved in a way that I think is proper for a responsible
minority. For example, on this bill dealing with the authorization of
our defense capacity in the United States, we have been very clear how
we support the troops. But remember, we have this little difficult
issue. The President of the United States has said he is going to veto
this bill. So we have worked through all this with that in mind. Having
said that, in spite of that, we did not ask for a cloture vote on the
motion to proceed. When we were in the majority, having the minority
not do that was a big day. It happened extremely rarely. We have been
doing that consistently--with some exceptions but not many.
On this Defense bill, we have allowed amendments to become pending.
There are a dozen or so pending right now. We have allowed the Senate
to conduct votes. We have allowed managers' amendments to be cleared--
lots of them. We have reacted in a responsible way. We have no regret
for having done that.
The two managers were working together to get amendments pending in a
mutually agreed-upon fashion when out of the blue, up comes this cyber
security amendment. It was also done in a very unusual way where
Senator Burr employed parliamentary devices to get the cyber security
bill pending to where we are right now. We could have been playing
around all week with our offering amendments, but I have always felt
that it should be done extremely rarely, for the minority to do
something like that. We could have done that.
If you look at the amendments that have been offered by us Democrats,
they are all, with rare exception, dealing with the security of this
Nation--not sage grouse, not all the other things the Republicans have
brought up in this bill.
To say that the Ex-Im Bank and the cyber security amendments have
impeded progress is a gross understatement. The cyber security bill is
a major bill in its own way--a major bill. I can speak with some
authority in this regard. Five years ago, I got every committee chair
who had jurisdiction over this subject and we met over a period of days
to come up with a cyber security bill. We did that. Republicans stopped
us. We kept getting a smaller
[[Page S4086]]
group of people involved as we were narrowing the bill, and we actually
were scheduled to finally have a vote on the cyber security bill. It
wasn't as good as I thought we should have, but it was an important
bill. And what happened on that? The chamber of commerce made a call to
some of the Republican leaders in the Senate, and suddenly that bill
was gone and we were voting on another ObamaCare amendment that, of
course, went nowhere.
But we have tried cyber security.
The Intelligence Committee reported out this bill, and I appreciate
that they did. It was on a bipartisan basis, but it also contains a lot
of matter within the jurisdiction of other committees--for example, the
Homeland Security Committee and the Judiciary Committee.
To her credit, the ranking member, Senator Feinstein, recognized that
and went to the Democrats and said: We will work with you and make sure
the problems you have with this bill when it gets to the floor--we will
work with you on this.
Senator Feinstein is a person of her word. I know she will do that,
and she will do that.
This morning, the Republican leader, who is on the floor, was saying
that we just had an attack on 4 million people and that it is Obama's
fault. I think that is stretching things a little bit, especially
recognizing that I have only given a brief travel through the times we
have tried to get up the cyber security legislation. We should take the
time to do it right.
I have told the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and I have
checked with our ranking member of the Finance Committee, who is
extremely interested--and hasn't been for 10 minutes or 10 days or 10
months but 10 years--in privacy. He has been our leader on privacy on
this side of the aisle, and he believes we could finish it, if we had a
free shot at this cyber bill, in a couple of days--and I agree with
him--at the most. So we are not trying to avoid cyber. I believe--we
believe it is an important part of what we need to do. But we should
take time to do it right. We should not be tacking this important piece
of legislation onto a bill the President has already said he is going
to veto just so the Republicans can blame Obama for vetoing this bill
as well.
If the majority would withdraw their cyber amendment and agree to
take it up after this bill, we could do it in a couple of days and then
we could return to working on the Defense bill. But we cannot take up
all these new amendments my friend the chairman of the committee wants
to set up votes on--we have the 9 he talks about, plus 6; that is 15--
until we resolve this matter dealing with cyber security.
So without belaboring the point--and I appreciate my impatient friend
being patient with me and listening to me go through all of this--I ask
the majority leader or my friend the chairman of the Armed Services
Committee if he would modify his consent request as follows.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture motion with
respect to amendment No. 1569--that is cyber security--as modified, be
withdrawn; that the pending amendment No. 1569--again, that is cyber
security--as modified, be withdrawn; and that upon the disposition of
H.R. 1735, the Defense authorization bill, the Senate proceed to the
consideration of Calendar No. 28, S. 754. That is the bill which came
out of the Intelligence Committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am
going to propose a modification of the consent request propounded by
the Democratic leader: that following disposition of H.R. 2685, the
Defense appropriations bill, the Senate turn to consideration of S.
754, the cyber security measure reported by the Senate Intelligence
Committee. I further ask that there be 10 relevant amendments to be
offered by each bill manager or designee, with 1 hour of debate
followed by a vote on the amendments offered, with a 60-vote threshold
on those amendments that are not germane to the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the
majority leader?
The minority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object to my friend's
modification, I repeat, the cyber security bill is important and the
Senate should turn to it, but putting it after the Defense
appropriations bill is a false promise. It is a facade. I think it is
very clear. I heard the Republican leader give a speech on the floor
today that he knows, unless there are some changes made, we are not
going to get on the Defense appropriations bill. So this is a false
promise.
If we could do it in a more specific, determined time, that would be
one thing, but the Republican leader obviously has no plan to complete
the Defense appropriations bill if this is how we are proceeding;
rather, they are proceeding ahead with his partisan budget plan--a plan
the President said will not become law.
Until Republicans sit down to work out a bipartisan Senate budget,
the Senate will not finish the Defense authorization bill. Once again,
the right way to do this would be to consider the cyber security bill
on its own merits after the Defense authorization bill is done. It
would take 2 days.
So I ask the majority leader if he would modify his consent request
to the following: that upon disposition of the Defense authorization
bill, H.R. 1735, the Senate proceed to consideration of Calendar No.
28, S. 754, which is the cyber security bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I
will object, I will point out that the Defense appropriations bill was
reported out of the Appropriations Committee today with only three
members voting against it. There was a lot of discussion about the
Democratic leader saying ``We are not going to pass the bill,'' but
when the votes were counted, only three members--all on the Democratic
side but only three--voted against reporting the bill out of committee.
My good friend the Democratic leader and I have had this discussion
back and forth, but one of the advantages of being in the majority is
that we set the schedule, and we are going to do the Defense
appropriations bill after we do the Defense authorization bill;
therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the
majority leader?
Mr. REID. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Does the Senator from Arizona modify his request with the request of
the Democratic leader?
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, may I make a couple of comments real quick
before the distinguished majority leader modifies his request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. I would remind my good friend from Nevada, the Democratic
leader, for the last 2 years we took up the Defense authorization bill,
and it was taken up so late there was not a single amendment--not a
single, solitary amendment on the Defense authorization bill for the
last 2 years. So I understand the Democratic leader's commitment to
amendments. It is too bad that for 2 years we never had a single
amendment to the Defense authorization bill.
As far as relevant amendments are concerned, one of the things about
this body is that everybody has the right to propose an amendment until
their amendments are not made germane. The three pending Democratic
amendments we have now on the bill are not germane.
So all I can say is that I hope we can get a modification. I hope we
can move forward.
I just wish to point out one more time what I know that my colleagues
have heard over and over, and I will make it brief. Henry Kissinger
testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the world has
never been in more crises. This world is at risk, and we have to--we
have to protect the men and women who are serving in our security. I
would argue that a national defense authorization act is probably more
important now than it has been at any time in recent history.
I refuse to modify my request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the Senator's original
request?
Mr. REID. Which Senator?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
[[Page S4087]]
Mr. REID. Yes, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture vote on amendment No. 1569 be
moved to 3 p.m. today and that the mandatory quorum call be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will be extremely brief. We can have a
debate here. We can look at all the press clippings of both sides on
what happened in the last 2 years on Defense authorization. We didn't
get a bill. We got a bill, but it was done in secret by the managers of
the two bills in the House and the Senate. The reason that happened--it
wasn't our fault. They wouldn't let us on the bill--``they'' meaning
the Republicans. So we can debate that all we want. Those are the
facts.
I do not object to my friend's request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The majority leader.
Cloture Motion
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk on
the McCain substitute amendment No. 1463.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the McCain
amendment No. 1463 to H.R. 1735, an act to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for military activities
of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and
for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to
prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year,
and for other purposes.
Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Richard C. Shelby, Jeff
Flake, John Barrasso, John Cornyn, Mike Rounds, Jeff
Sessions, Shelley Moore Capito, Lamar Alexander,
Lindsey Graham, Joni Ernst, John Hoeven, Roger F.
Wicker, Kelly Ayotte, Richard Burr, Thom Tillis.
Cloture Motion
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk
with respect to the underlying House bill, H.R. 1735.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on H.R. 1735, an
act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, for
military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel
strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.
Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Richard C. Shelby, Jeff
Flake, John Barrasso, John Cornyn, Mike Rounds, Jeff
Sessions, Shelley Moore Capito, Lamar Alexander,
Lindsey Graham, Joni Ernst, John Hoeven, Roger F.
Wicker, Kelly Ayotte, Richard Burr, Thom Tillis.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Amendment No. 1569, as Modified
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, in just a moment, the Senate will
consider an important cyber security measure. I urge every one of my
colleagues to support it.
USA TODAY recently cited a cyber security expert who noted that this
Senate legislation has the potential to greatly reduce the number of
victims targeted by the kinds of hackers we have seen in recent years.
It contains modern tools to help deter future attacks against both the
government and the private sector, to provide them with knowledge to
erect stronger defenses, and to get the word out faster about attacks
when they are detected.
The top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee reminded us that the
cyber security measure before us would also protect individual privacy
and civil liberties. She has urged Congress to ``act quickly'' to deter
a threat that is literally impossible to overstate.
The White House has also urged Congress to act.
The new Congress has been asked to act, and today we are, with a
good, strong, transparent, bipartisan measure which has been thoroughly
vetted by both parties in committee and which has been available for
months--literally months--for anyone to read. It was endorsed by nearly
every Democrat and every Republican on the Intelligence Committee, 14
to 1. It is also backed by a broad coalition of supporters, everyone
from the chamber of commerce to the United States Telecom Association.
It is legislation that is all about protecting our country, which is
why it makes perfect sense to consider it alongside defense legislation
with the very same aim. Cyber security amendments can be offered, and
the debate will continue.
So let's work together to advance this measure. There are now 4
million extra reasons for Congress to act quickly. The sooner we do,
the sooner we can conference it with similar legislation that passed
the House and get a good cyber security law enacted to help protect our
country. The opportunity to begin doing that will come in a few moments
with a vote for cloture on this bipartisan cyber security bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). The minority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have on the Senate floor an authorization
bill for about $600 billion--Defense authorization for about $600
billion. I can't imagine the procedural games, the chicanery involved
in this. Why did we yesterday have on this bill something on Ex-Im
Bank? Was it just to check it off so they could say we tried and
Democrats wouldn't let us do it? Why would we have on this $600 billion
bill dealing with the security of this Nation something else that also
deals with the security of this Nation and that deserves a separate
piece of legislation so we can have amendments and talk about that? We
have agreed to do it in a very short period of time.
There is no good reason for doing it this way. We should limit the
matter at hand to the Defense authorization bill at some $600 billion,
and then we have agreed to go to cyber security. We are willing to do
that. But I cannot imagine--I cannot imagine--why the Republican leader
is doing this. It makes a mockery of the legislative process.
Mr. WYDEN. Will the leader yield for a question?
Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield to the ranking member of the
committee for a question.
Mr. WYDEN. Leader, I strongly oppose cloture on this cyber measure
and I want to ask the Senator a question.
I think we all understand how dangerous hackers are. They are
increasingly sophisticated. The most dangerous hackers rarely use the
same technique twice. I believe what the Senator is saying is we can't
deal with this responsibly by stapling the cyber bill to something
else. Is that one of the key reasons the leader is opposing this?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, respectfully, I suggest we are on leader
time now. My time is protected--or used to be--and the Senator asked me
a question. I yielded to him for a question. He should have the right
to answer the question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
Mr. WYDEN. I will be very brief.
I oppose cloture on the cyber measure. I think what the leader is
saying is that the cyber measure is so serious we shouldn't deal with
it by stapling it to something else. It is so important we ought to
have an opportunity over that 2-day period to deal with it separately;
is that the leader's view?
Mr. REID. Without any question.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on amendment No.
1569, as modified, to the McCain
[[Page S4088]]
amendment No. 1463 to H.R. 1735, an act to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for military activities
of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and
for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to
prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year,
and for other purposes.
Mitch McConnell, Lamar Alexander, John Cornyn, Orrin G.
Hatch, David Perdue, Bob Corker, Michael B. Enzi, Susan
M. Collins, Jeff Flake, Mike Rounds, Richard Burr,
David Vitter, James M. Inhofe, Daniel Coats, John
McCain, Deb Fischer, Tom Cotton.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on
amendment No. 1569, as modified, offered by the Senator from Arizona,
Mr. McCain, for the Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Burr, to the
substitute amendment No. 1463, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) and
the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 56, nays 40, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 207 Leg.]
YEAS--56
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Bennet
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Lankford
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Nelson
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Warner
Wicker
NAYS--40
Baldwin
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Kaine
Lee
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Paul
Peters
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--4
Cruz
Leahy
Merkley
Rubio
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 56, the nays are
40.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Welcoming Visitors from Wheaton College
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, now that we concluded the vote, I would
like to announce for the Record that I am privileged and honored to be
able to host a number of people from my alma mater, Wheaton College.
The board of trustees is holding a meeting here in Washington. They are
visiting the Capitol and we are about to go on a tour.
I want to thank them for their service to our college and to America.
They are spending a good amount of time here working through issues
that are very important to the school. Wheaton College is an
evangelical school that has been true to the faith in dealing with the
challenges that exist today. I am pleased to be able to acknowledge
that they are here visiting the Capitol, and enjoying the sites of
Washington while making some tough decisions.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
(The remarks of Mr. Sanders pertaining to the introduction of S. 1564
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Federal Vehicle Repair Cost Savings Act
Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support
the bipartisan legislation I introduced with my colleague Senator
Lankford, the Federal Vehicle Repair Cost Savings Act.
I am pleased the Senate is considering the first bill I introduced as
a Senator, which was approved by the Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs Committee on a unanimous vote earlier this year.
I appreciate Senator Lankford partnering with me to work on this
legislation in committee and as it has moved to the Senate floor. I
look forward to continuing to work with him as a member of the
subcommittee he chairs, the Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management
Subcommittee.
I also appreciate that my colleague from Michigan Representative
Huizenga has introduced bipartisan companion legislation in the House
of Representatives.
The Federal Vehicle Repair Cost Savings Act is a bipartisan,
commonsense measure that will help save taxpayers money and promote
conservation by encouraging Federal agencies to use remanufactured auto
parts when they are maintaining their fleets of vehicles.
In addition to saving money, this legislation also supports
remanufacturing suppliers and their employees in Michigan and across
the country. Remanufactured parts are usually less expensive than
similar parts and have been returned to same-as-new condition using a
standardized industrial process.
The United States is the largest producer, consumer, and exporter of
remanufactured goods. Remanufacturing of motor vehicle parts accounts
for over 30,000 full-time U.S. jobs, and our country employs over
20,000 workers remanufacturing off-road equipment.
In addition to the cost savings using remanufactured parts, it also
has significant environmental benefits. Remanufacturing saves energy by
reusing raw materials such as iron, aluminum, and copper. On average,
the remanufacturing process saves approximately 85 percent of the
energy and material used to manufacture equivalent new products.
I urge my colleagues to support S. 565, the Federal Vehicle Repair
Cost Savings Act, commonsense legislation that is good for taxpayers,
our environment, and American manufacturers.
Mr. President, I also rise to support the bipartisan Ayotte-Peters
amendment to authorize bilateral research and development with Israel
on anti-tunnel capabilities.
I appreciate Senator Ayotte's efforts to work together on this
critical matter of national security. Israel remains our closest ally
in the Middle East, and this amendment will further our shared
cooperation to increase security for both Americans and Israelis.
Our ally Israel faces significant threats from underground tunnels
built by terrorists intent on murdering innocent Israelis. Hamas and
Hezbollah threaten Israel with an extensive network of sophisticated
tunnels which are used to smuggle weapons and carry out kidnappings and
attacks against Israeli citizens.
These are not simple tunnels dug by hand with shovels. These tunnels
cost millions of dollars and are built with thousands of tons of
concrete. Often they are built using resources intended for
humanitarian purposes in Gaza but are instead diverted to terrorist
activity. They are constructed with machinery designed to avoid
detection. In some cases, Hamas has filled the tunnels with provisions
to last several months. The Israeli Defense Forces called the tunnels
underneath Gaza an underground city of terror.
Bomb attacks from tunnels dug by terrorist organizations are a
growing threat to forward deployed U.S. forces and our diplomatic
personnel abroad. Terrorists carry out these attacks by digging tunnels
underneath a target and detonating explosives.
Earlier this week, the publication Defense One reported that ISIS is
also using tunnel bombs as a tactic, detonating at least 45 tunnel
bombs in Iraq and Syria over the last 2 years.
We face threats from tunnels on American soil as well. Our own Border
Patrol and law enforcement on the
[[Page S4089]]
southern border are up against drug smugglers, human traffickers, and
other global criminal organizations using tunnels to sneak drugs,
weapons, and people across our border illegally.
I serve on the Homeland Security Committee and understand the threat
our Border Patrol agents and law enforcement face from transnational
criminal organizations using tunnels along our southern border. These
criminals flow to the path of least resistance, and as our border
security efforts address one threat, they seek other methods to avoid
detection and continue their criminal activity.
When the U.S. Border Patrol blocked drug smugglers and human
traffickers from utilizing existing drainage tunnels, the criminals
began digging their own tunnels. We need to stay ahead of these
threats, and that is why we must conduct critical research and
development so we can detect and destroy these dangerous tunnels.
This amendment will authorize joint research and development with
Israel on anti-tunnel capabilities. This joint approach will help us
work together on research and development against this shared threat.
The amendment requires Israel to share in the cost of this research
and provides a framework for sharing intellectual property developed
together before action is carried out. This amendment will allow the
Department of Defense to work with Israel to develop a capability that
will be used to protect our homeland and our troops abroad as well as
those of our ally.
This amendment will make clear that joint research and development on
anti-tunnel capabilities can and should be part of our security
cooperation with Israel. It will also send a strong message that the
Senate recognizes the threat posed by tunnels intended for attacks
against Israel, and this cooperation will help us secure our own
borders as well.
I urge all my colleagues to support the Ayotte-Peters amendment No.
1628.
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.
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 amendment No.
1569, as modified, be withdrawn; that the next first-degree amendments
in order to H.R. 1735, the Defense authorization bill, be the
Gillibrand amendment No. 1578 and the Ernst amendment No. 1549; and
that the Gillibrand and Ernst amendments be subject to a 60-
affirmative-vote threshold.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1549 to Amendment No. 1463
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I call up the Ernst amendment No. 1549.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mrs. Ernst,
proposes an amendment numbered 1549 to amendment No. 1463.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide for a temporary, emergency authorization of
defense articles, defense services, and related training directly to
the Kurdistan Regional Government)
At the end of section 1229, add the following:
(c) Statement of Policy.--It is the policy of the United
States to promote a stable and unified Iraq, including by
directly providing the Kurdistan Regional Government military
and security forces associated with the Government of Iraq
with defense articles, defense services, and related
training, on an emergency and temporary basis, to more
effectively partner with the United States and other
international coalition members to defeat the Islamic State
of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
(d) Authorization.--
(1) Military assistance.--The President, in consultation
with the Government of Iraq, is authorized to provide defense
articles, defense services, and related training directly to
Kurdistan Regional Government military and security forces
associated with the Government of Iraq for the purpose of
supporting international coalition efforts against the
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and any successor
group or associated forces.
(2) Defense exports.--The President is authorized to issue
licenses authorizing United States exporters to export
defense articles, defense services, and related training
directly to the Kurdistan Regional Government military and
security forces described in paragraph (1). For purposes of
processing applications for such export licenses, the
President is authorized to accept End Use Certificates
approved by the Kurdistan Regional Government.
(3) Types of assistance.--Assistance authorized under
paragraph (1) and exports authorized under paragraph (2) may
include anti-tank and anti-armor weapons, armored vehicles,
long-range artillery, crew-served weapons and ammunition,
secure command and communications equipment, body armor,
helmets, logistics equipment, excess defense articles and
other military assistance that the President determines to be
appropriate.
(e) Relationship to Existing Authorities.--
(1) Relationship to existing authorities.--Assistance
authorized under subsection (b)(1) and licenses for exports
authorized under subsection (d)(2) shall be provided pursuant
to the applicable provisions of the Arms Export Control Act
(22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.) and the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.), notwithstanding any
requirement in such applicable provisions of law that a
recipient of assistance of the type authorized under
subsection (d)(1) shall be a country or international
organization. In addition, any requirement in such provisions
of law applicable to such countries or international
organizations concerning the provision of end use retransfers
and other assurance required for transfers of such assistance
should be secured from the Kurdistan Regional Government.
(2) Construction as precedent.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed as establishing a precedent for the future
provision of assistance described in subsection (d) to
organizations other than a country or international
organization.
(f) Reports.--
(1) Initial report.--Not later than 45 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to
the appropriate congressional committees a report that
includes the following:
(A) A timeline for the provision of defense articles,
defense services, and related training under the authority of
subsections (d)(1) and (d)(2).
(B) A description of mechanisms and procedures for end-use
monitoring of such defense articles, defense services, and
related training.
(C) How such defense articles, defense services, and
related training would contribute to the foreign policy and
national security of the United States, as well as impact
security in the region.
(2) Updates.--Not later than 180 days after the submittal
of the report required by paragraph (1), and every 180 days
thereafter through the termination pursuant to subsection (i)
of the authority in subsection (d), the President shall
submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report
updating the previous report submitted under this subsection.
In addition to any matters so updated, each report shall
include a description of any delays, and the circumstances
surrounding such delays, in the delivery of defense articles,
defense services, and related training to the Kurdistan
Regional Government pursuant to the authority in subsections
(d)(1) and (d)(2).
(3) Form.--Any report under this subsection shall be
submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified
annex.
(4) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``appropriate
congressional committees'' means--
(A) the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on
Appropriations, the Committee on Armed Services, and the
Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and
(B) the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on
Appropriations, the Committee on Armed Services, and the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives.
(g) Notification.--The President should provide
notification to the Government of Iraq, when practicable, not
later than 15 days before providing defense articles, defense
services, or related training to the Kurdistan Regional
Government under the authority of subsection (d)(1) or
(d)(2).
(h) Additional Definitions.--In this section, the terms
``defense article'', ``defense service'', and ``training''
have the meanings given those terms in section 47 of the Arms
Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2794).
(i) Termination.--The authority to provide defense
articles, defense services, and related training under
subsection (d)(1) and the authority to issue licenses for
exports authorized under subsection (d)(2) shall terminate on
the date that is three years after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
[[Page S4090]]
Amendment No. 1578 to Amendment No. 1463
(Purpose: To reform procedures for determinations to proceed to trial
by court-martial for certain offenses under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice.
Mr. REED. I ask that the pending amendment be set aside and on behalf
of Senator Gillibrand I call up amendment No. 1578.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for Mrs.
Gillibrand, proposes an amendment numbered 1578 to amendment
to 1463.
Mr. REED. 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 3, 2015, under ``Text
of Amendments.'')
Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as is obvious, we have an agreement to
votes on both the Gillibrand and Ernst amendments. I would imagine it
may require a recorded vote, but I am not positive. Then, we are
planning on moving forward with additional amendments as agreed to by
both sides and a managers' package as well. That is our intention. I am
told that at some point there may be a cloture motion on the bill as
well.
So I wish to thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his continued
cooperation, and hopefully we can get as many Members' amendments as
possible up and voted on and finish the bill, at the soonest, next
week.
____________________