[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 98 (Thursday, June 18, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4258-S4275]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I hope we are in the final hours of a 2\1/
2\-week consideration of the Defense authorization bill. Not all 
amendments were debated and not as many were reported yet. We still 
have hopes that there could be a managers' package, which is composed 
of agreed-upon amendments by both sides, equally divided by both sides 
of the aisle, both Republican and Democratic. There are some important 
amendments, so I hope we are able to get approval of at least some of 
them prior to the votes that I believe will be scheduled for this 
afternoon in order to conclude debate and consideration of the Defense 
authorization act.
  As we enter the final throes--and there are Members on the other side 
of the aisle and maybe even on this side of the aisle who are deeply 
concerned about the OCO funding for this authorization--I repeat again 
to my colleagues, I don't like the use of OCO. I would like to follow 
the advice of every one of our military leaders who say that continued 
sequestration puts the lives of the men and women who are serving in 
the military in greater danger. I am not sure we have a greater 
obligation than to do everything possible to prevent the lives of our 
men and women serving in uniform from being put in greater danger. To 
get hung up on the method of funding, which many will use as a 
rationale for opposing this bill, seems to me an upside down set of 
priorities--badly upside down.
  If we don't fund, if we don't authorize, if we don't make possible 
for us to equip and train and retain the finest military force in the 
world, why is it a higher priority to object to the method of funding? 
As I said, in a perfect world, I would argue vigorously--and have 
continued to--about the harmful effects of sequestration.
  I am not talking about a political opinion. I am talking about the 
view of the uniformed leaders of our Nation who have the respect and 
admiration of all of us. They are telling us that if we continue 
sequestration, which would be the effect of not including the 
additional funding of the overseas contingency operations, then 
obviously in this world that becomes more and more dangerous as we 
speak--and I continue to quote probably the most respected man in 
America, in many respects, Henry Kissinger, who testified before our 
committee that he has never seen more crises around the world since 
World War II, as is the case today.
  I would entreat my colleagues who may be contemplating voting against 
this legislation on the grounds that the funding is a disqualifying 
factor--it is a troubling factor and it is troubling to me--but 
shouldn't we care more about the men and women who are serving in the 
military than the problem you might have with a certain process that 
was followed in order to get there? I would think not.
  If you look at the world in 2011, when the unthinkable happened; that 
is, that sequestration automatically kicked in because both sides were 
unable to agree on a process that would reduce the deficit and put us 
on a path to a balanced budget. Everyone said sequestration will not 
happen because they will come to an agreement. Obviously, sequestration 
did happen. But if you look at the world in the year of 2011, when 
sequestration kicked in, and the world today, I think--I think--there 
is a compelling argument that national security and national defense is 
far more important than it was then. Because of a series of events that 
began in 2011--including an incredibly misguided decision by the 
President of the United States to withdraw all forces from Iraq, which 
then, inevitably, as some of us predicted, led to the situation as it 
exists today--the world is now and the Middle East is now literally on 
fire.
  What are the results of the misguided policies and the commitment on 
the

[[Page S4259]]

part of the President to get us out of wars? The President ignored one 
reality; that is, that we may get Americans out of wars, but that 
doesn't mean the wars are over. What we have seen is the spread of 
ISIS. We have seen Iran on the move in nations throughout the region, 
including the latest information we have that Iran is supplying weapons 
to the Taliban in Afghanistan, not to mention Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and 
Lebanon, where they are basically in control. Our Sunni Arab--Middle 
Eastern Arab nations are now going their own way because they have no 
confidence in the United States.
  What has been the result? All you have to do is pick up this 
morning's copy of the Washington Post. ``Refugee crisis hits tipping 
point. U.N. ranks 2014 as worst year on record, cites dire need for 
aid.''

       London--The number of people uprooted from their homes by 
     war and persecution in 2014 was larger than in any year since 
     detailed record-keeping began, according to a comprehensive 
     report released early Thursday by the U.N. refugee agency 
     that will add to the evidence of a global exodus unlike any 
     in modern times.
       Just a year after the number of refugees, asylum-seekers 
     and people forced to flee within their own countries 
     surpassed 50 million for the first time since World War II, 
     it surged to nearly 60 million in 2014--``a nation of the 
     displaced'' that is roughly equal to the population of the 
     United Kingdom.
       The rapidly escalating figures reflect a world of renewed 
     conflict, with wars in the Middle East, Africa, Asia and 
     Europe driving families and individuals from their homes in 
     desperate flights for safety. But the systems for managing 
     those flows are breaking down, with countries and aid 
     agencies unable to handle the strain as an average of nearly 
     45,000 people a day join the ranks of the displaced.

  I urge my colleagues to understand two things: One, a lot of these 
things didn't have to happen. The absence of American leadership and 
involvement is largely responsible for a great deal of this. Second of 
all, it is of vital importance, in my view, given the situation 
throughout the world, that we pass the Defense authorization bill, 
reconcile our differences with the legislation with the House and the 
administration, and take into account that this is probably the 
greatest piece of reform legislation in recent history, perhaps in the 
last 30 years, since the then-well-known Goldwater-Nichols Act was 
passed.
  In Reuters today, it says: ``World's displaced hits record high of 60 
million, half of them children.''
  Of the 60 million people who are displaced, half of them are 
children. They are the ones who always suffer the most.
  The article says:

     . . . at the end of last year, the highest ever recorded 
     number, the U.N. refugee agency said on Thursday.
       More than half the displaced from crises including Syria, 
     Afghanistan and Somalia were children, UNHCR said in its 
     Annual Global Trends Report.
       In 2014, an average of 42,500 people became refugees, 
     asylum seekers, or internally displaced every day, 
     representing a four-fold increase in just four years.

  In 4 years, there was a fourfold increase in the number of refugees. 
Again, that is not an accident.

       ``We are witnessing a paradigm change, an unchecked slide 
     into an era in which the scale of global forced displacement 
     as well as the response required is now clearly dwarfing 
     anything seen before,'' said U.N. High Commissioner for 
     Refugees Antonio Guterres in a statement.
       UNHCR said Syria, where conflict has raged since 2011, was 
     the world's biggest source of internally displaced people and 
     refugees.
       There were 7.6 million displaced people in Syria by the end 
     of last year and almost 4 million Syrian refugees, mainly 
     living in the neighboring countries of Lebanon, Jordan and 
     Turkey.

  For the information of my colleagues, there are now more Syrian 
children in school in Lebanon than there are Lebanese children in 
school in Lebanon.

       UNHCR said there were 38.2 million displaced by conflict 
     within national borders, almost five million more than a year 
     before, with wars in Ukraine, South Sudan, Nigeria, Central 
     African Republic and the Democratic Republic of the Congo 
     swelling the figures.
       It also noted that more than 1.6 million people sought 
     political asylum in a foreign country last year, a jump of 
     more than 50 percent compared to the previous year--largely 
     due to the 270,000 Ukrainians who submitted asylum claims in 
     Russia.
       While many conflicts have erupted or reignited in the past 
     five years, few have been conclusively resolved. Just 126,800 
     refugees were able to return home in 2014, the lowest number 
     in 31 years, UNHCR said.

  I say to my colleagues, I have been to refugee camps, and I have seen 
the suffering and pain and the hopelessness there. I was taken around 
by a teacher at a refugee camp where there were about 175,000 people, 
as I recall, in Jordan, and there were a large number of children 
around in this camp.
  The teacher said to me: Senator McCain, do you see all of these 
children here?
  I said: Yes, I do.
  She said: They believe you Americans have abandoned them, and when 
they grow up, they are going to take revenge on you.
  My friends, we are sowing the wind, and we will reap the whirlwind. 
It is time that the United States assumed again a leadership role in 
the world.
  Now many of the critics who call me ``Defense Hawk'' McCain--I am not 
sure why the opponents are not called ``Defense Doves,'' fill in the 
blank--seem to believe I am advocating that a large number of American 
troops be dispatched to the region. I am not, but I am saying we should 
listen to the successful military leaders who succeeded in the surge in 
Iraq and to a large degree succeeded in Afghanistan. I am speaking of 
General Petraeus, General Keane, and Admiral McRaven. There are a 
number of people, both military and civilian, we should listen to. Ryan 
Crocker, to me, is the most respected member of the diplomatic corps I 
have ever seen. Those people ought to be brought together and asked for 
their views to see if we can develop a strategy--a strategy, by the 
way, which the President of the United States just a few days ago 
stated is nonexistent. They should be called, and we need to develop a 
strategy. There is no strategy. If we had a strategy--and these numbers 
of a record high of the world's displaced of 60 million people, half of 
them children--perhaps we could turn this situation around.
  No one believes we are winning in the struggle against ISIS. We are 
at the negotiating table in various luxuriant hotels and resorts in 
Europe, negotiating with the Iranians over a nuclear deal while they 
are moving and controlling four nations, and the latest, of course, is 
that they are supplying weapons to the Taliban.
  We need to have a strategy that is inclusive, and we need to draw on 
the experience and knowledge from some of the most respected men we 
have in this country with a military, political, diplomatic, and 
economic background and come up with a strategy.
  I will tell my colleagues there is no good answer. There is the least 
of bad options. But we have to exercise an option rather than run in 
place for the next year and a half until we have a new President of the 
United States.
  This legislation is not going to solve those problems. This 
legislation has certain policy implications. This legislation does not 
achieve the goals I was just speaking about. But this legislation does 
do the things we need to do--we, as the people's elected 
representatives whose first obligation is the defense of this Nation. 
This legislation addresses many issues that will make our defense 
establishment more responsive, more responsible, more efficient, and 
most of all will provide the equipment and the capabilities for the men 
and women who are serving in the military, many of them still in harm's 
way, so that they can defend this Nation. Anybody who believes ISIS 
would be content to remain in the Middle East and not export that 
terror to the United States of America has not listened to the Director 
of the CIA, the head of the FBI, and every other military expert. ISIS 
is bent on harming America.
  When Mr. Baghdadi left Camp Bucca, where he spent 4 years--Mr. 
Baghdadi, obviously, as we know, is the leader of ISIS. He spent 4 
years at Camp Bucca in Iraq. When he left, he said: I will see you in 
New York. Mr. Baghdadi wasn't kidding. ISIS is bent on attacking us. 
Can they destroy us? No. But the ability of ISIS to be able to launch 
some attacks on the United States of America grows every time there are 
thousands of young men and some young women who go to Syria and Iraq 
and are radicalized even more and return, sooner or later, to the 
country from which they came.
  I ask that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle put aside the 
smaller

[[Page S4260]]

differences we have. And there are differences with my colleagues on 
this side of the aisle concerning, for example, the sage-grouse and a 
number of other provisions in this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to put aside those differences--and in the view 
of many, there are significant differences--and vote in favor of this 
legislation and send a message that at least on the issue of defending 
the Nation, we will provide the men and women who are putting their 
lives on the line on our behalf the best possible capabilities we can 
possibly provide for them.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article entitled 
``Refugee crisis hits tipping point'' in the Washington Post this 
morning be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, June 18, 2015]

                   Refugee Crisis Hits Tipping Point

                            (By Griff Witte)

       London.--The number of people uprooted from their homes by 
     war and persecution in 2014 was larger than in any year since 
     detailed record-keeping began, according to a comprehensive 
     report released early Thursday by the U.N. refugee agency 
     that will add to the evidence of a global exodus unlike any 
     in modern times.
       Just a year after the number of refugees, asylum-seekers 
     and people forced to flee within their own countries 
     surpassed 50 million for the first time since World War II, 
     it surged to nearly 60 million in 2014--``a nation of the 
     displaced'' that is roughly equal to the population of the 
     United Kingdom.
       The rapidly escalating figures reflect a world of renewed 
     conflict, with wars in the Middle East, Africa, Asia and 
     Europe driving families and individuals from their homes in 
     desperate flights for safety. But the systems for managing 
     those flows are breaking down, with countries and aid 
     agencies unable to handle the strain as an average of nearly 
     45,000 people a day join the ranks of those either on the 
     move or stranded far from home.
       ``We are witnessing a paradigm change, an unchecked slide 
     into an era in which the scale of global forced displacement 
     as well as the response required is now clearly dwarfing 
     anything seen before,'' U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees 
     Antonio Guterres said in a statement. ``It is terrifying that 
     on the one hand there is more and more impunity for those 
     starting conflicts, and on the other there is seeming utter 
     inability of the international community to work together to 
     stop wars and build and preserve peace.''
       The annual report on global trends in displacement, issued 
     by the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, or 
     UNHCR, offers perhaps the most authoritative look at who is 
     being uprooted by conflict, where they come from and where 
     they go. The agency, created in 1950 to support Europeans 
     displaced by World War II, said the figures for 2014 were 
     higher than it has ever recorded.
       The overall number, which does not include those displaced 
     by natural disasters or economic migrants in search of a 
     better life, had been relatively stable, at around 40 
     million, since the start of the 21st century.
       But it abruptly shot up in 2013, and the pace accelerated 
     last year. Although the report does not cover 2015, there is 
     no indication that the trajectory has changed.
       The four-year-old war in Syria has been the single biggest 
     driver of the surging numbers. Last year, 1 in 5 displaced 
     persons worldwide was Syrian. The country in 2014 became the 
     planet's largest source of refugees, displacing Afghanistan, 
     which had held that dubious distinction for three decades.
       The impact of a Syrian population on the move has been felt 
     across the Middle East. Neighboring Turkey now hosts more 
     refugees than any other nation, knocking Pakistan to No. 2. 
     Lebanon has the world's highest concentration, at nearly a 
     quarter of those living in the tiny Mediterranean nation.
       The vast majority of refugees last year were hosted by poor 
     countries that can least afford the added strain. Nearly 9 
     out of 10 refugees were living in the developing world--a 
     figure that hit a two-decade high.
       Meanwhile, with nations across the developing world either 
     at war or in crisis, some of the world's wealthiest nations 
     have focused on how to beat back the rising tide of those 
     seeking escape.
       France and Austria have stepped up police checks at 
     crossings with Italy, leaving migrants to camp out at train 
     stations in Rome and Milan. Hungary on Wednesday announced 
     plans to build a 12-foot fence along its border with Serbia. 
     Nations across Europe have balked at proposals to more 
     equitably share the burden of asylum-seekers while rushing to 
     approve plans to blow up smuggler ships in the Mediterranean.
       The tough response has been largely due to political 
     pressure among populations hostile to the influx of migrants. 
     But it prompted Pope Francis on Wednesday to suggest that 
     those ``who close the door'' to migrants seeking protection 
     should ask forgiveness from God.
       The UNHCR and other aid groups have pleaded for more 
     assistance to keep pace with the ever-growing numbers, but to 
     little avail.
       ``There's a real risk that we're seeing the unraveling of 
     the refugee regime that was created in the aftermath of the 
     Second World War on the basis of cooperation and 
     reciprocity,'' said Alexander Betts, director of the Refugee 
     Studies Center at Oxford University.
       Betts said that unlike during other conflicts, including 
     those in Southeast Asia, the Balkans and Central America, 
     governments are not stepping up to offer assistance 
     commensurate with the scale of a problem that now touches 
     virtually every corner of the globe.
       ``This isn't a regional problem,'' he said. ``It's a global 
     challenge.''
       The UNHCR's report identifies at least 15 wars across three 
     continents that have either erupted or reignited in the past 
     five years, and that together have forced millions to abandon 
     their homes. A total of 13.9 million people were displaced in 
     2014 alone.
       About a third of those were in sub-Saharan Africa, where 
     wars in the Central African Republic, South Sudan, Somalia, 
     Nigeria and Congo all flared. Somalia alone is the source of 
     more than a million refugees, the world's third-highest 
     total.
       Europe experienced the biggest proportional increase in 
     displaced persons last year, with a staggering 51 percent 
     increase over 2013.
       While much of that was due to Syrian refugees streaming 
     into Turkey, it also reflected the 219,000 people who entered 
     the continent via the perilous journey across the 
     Mediterranean. And as Russian-backed rebels brought war back 
     to European soil, more than 800,000 people were left 
     internally displaced in Ukraine. About 200,000 Ukrainians 
     applied for asylum in Russia.
       Worldwide, the number of internally displaced people vastly 
     outstripped the number of refugees. Once people fled their 
     home countries, they had little hope of returning. Just 
     126,800 refugees went back to their home countries in 2014 
     out of a global refugee population of 14.4 million. That 
     marked the lowest level of return since 1983.

  Mr. McCAIN. 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 (Mr. Rubio). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would note for my colleagues the 
presence of General Dunford, Commandant of the Marine Corps, a great 
combat leader and leader of our military and considered to be the next 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a man we all admire a great 
deal.
  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. ROBERTS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                     Tragedy at Emanuel AME Church

  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, like many have said here today, I would 
like to express my deepest condolences to the victims of the shooting 
at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, SC, last 
night. This was a senseless act of violence. My thoughts and prayers 
are with the victims, their families, and all affected by this horrible 
tragedy.
  I know we all hope the perpetrator is swiftly brought to justice. I 
pray for the safety of the entire Charleston community. This was an act 
of senseless violence, to be sure. But as I understand it, the 
perpetrator saved one woman and told her: ``I want you to tell everyone 
what happened here.'' That is beyond sinister. That is evil. That evil 
must be stopped and must be dealt with.


                               ObamaCare

  What I would like to talk about now is the Supreme Court's critical 
ruling on the most recent review of the Affordable Care Act--ObamaCare. 
It is important to highlight many of the ways this law is negatively 
impacting our health care system as a whole, my constituents in Kansas, 
the Presiding Officer's constituents in her neighboring State of 
Nebraska--all over the country.
  Trying to list all of the problems with this law is nearly 
impossible. Perhaps the best way is to review the promises of the 
President of the United States. The crafting of this law was supposed 
to follow his promise of being the most transparent administration in

[[Page S4261]]

history. The problem is that there has been a lack of transparency--not 
to mention the oversight of this law since it was originally being 
crafted and throughout its implementation.
  Despite hearing the contrary from our docs and nurses about practices 
and hospitals closing and premiums and copays increasing, the 
administration continues to turn a blind eye. The administration 
continually moves the goal posts to which they measure success and have 
claimed victory.
  In 2012, the Congressional Budget Office projected there would be 14 
million people enrolled in exchange plans this year. Then late last 
year, the administration back-pedaled on its projections for the second 
year of enrollment, moving the goal posts. The most recent data out of 
the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the infamous CMS, shows 
that when you look at how many individuals had effectual coverage or 
actually paid their first month's premium and continued to have an 
active policy, that number is 10 million. Madam President, that is 
nearly 30 percent below the 2012 enrollment projections--30 percent. 
That is not transparency. That is not victory.

  So why is this number lower? Why aren't folks signing up? First, we 
had a Web site that crashed and that didn't work. Then Americans tried 
to shop around and view the policies available to them. But as it turns 
out, the law didn't lower premiums for the average family by $2,500--
remember that promise--as the President promised. This didn't happen. 
Premiums are increasing.
  The President also promised you could keep your same health care plan 
and your doctor. We have known for some time that is just not true. It 
didn't happen.
  Yet just last week the President responded to questions regarding his 
signature law--his legacy law, if you will--at a press conference 
following the G-7 summit. He said: ``The thing is working.'' Now, one 
might add that the ``thing'' is a pretty good term for the Affordable 
Care Act.
  The President also said: ``I mean, part of what's bizarre about this 
whole thing is we haven't had a lot of conversation about the horrors 
of ObamaCare because none of them have really come to pass.''
  Really?
  President Obama concluded: ``It hasn't had an adverse effect on 
people who already had health insurance.''
  Well, I am not sure what data has been presented to the President or 
which American family he has been listening to, but it is certainly not 
the reality that I have experienced and that Kansans are experiencing. 
The real-life threats of this law we hear from Kansans back home have 
not stopped. They are increasing.
  A small business owner in Cummings, KS, called my office to inform me 
his premium this year went up over $500 a month--more than double last 
year's.
  Eddy, in Spring Hill, says his premium has doubled and his deductible 
has doubled. He is being forced to choose between running his company 
and buying health insurance. He says he can't do both.
  Let's go back to the President's comments about this ``thing'' having 
no adverse effect. Just a couple of weeks ago his own administration 
published the proposed double-digit--double-digit--premium increases 
for 2016--next year. The plans on the list affect more than 6 million 
people across the country and are seeking an average increase of 21 
percent.
  The Kansas Insurance Department tells us that premiums for some 
individual and small group health care plans are likely to increase by 
as much as 38 percent.
  According to the administration's list, 14 insurance plans are 
seeking premium increases above 10 percent for next year. That covers 
100,000 Kansans. When you look at just two insurance plans, those two 
insurance plans have increases of 28 and 38 percent. Perhaps the 
President does not categorize these 100,000 Kansans as being adversely 
affected by this ``thing.''
  Simply put, premiums will continue to spiral upward if we do not act. 
Facts and reality are really very stubborn things. Even ObamaCare's 
chief architect, Jonathan Gruber--we all remember Jonathan Gruber--was 
quoted last year as saying if ``you made it explicit that healthy 
people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed. Lack 
of transparency is a huge political advantage.'' So said Mr. Gruber.
  Still quoting Mr. Gruber: ``And basically, call it the stupidity of 
the American voter or whatever, but basically that really was really, 
really critical for the thing to pass.'' That is his quote.
  Those comments belittle the American people and try to rationalize 
why, when you have an agenda, the government should not be transparent. 
The President and proponents of ObamaCare all said publicly this was 
the first step to nationalized health insurance. That certainly has 
become transparent.
  Now, not only are individuals adversely affected in terms of their 
own insurance coverage, but also due to the law's mandate on employers, 
many are seeing the law's negative repercussions at their jobs. The 
law's employer mandate hinders job creation and growth. Its new 
definition of full-time employment at 30 hours a week has been a real 
problem. According to one estimate, 2.6 million workers--2.6 million 
workers--could potentially have their hours and therefore their 
paychecks reduced as a result of this provision.
  Most concerning is that this new definition of full-time employment 
hits low-wage earners who work in the service industries. Of the 
individuals at risk, about half work in retail and half in restaurants. 
If these folks were previously working the traditional 40 hours per 
week, you are not just taking 10 hours from them, but you are reducing 
their paycheck by 25 percent a week. That is why they work in two 
different jobs. That is a very noticeable adverse effect.
  The concerns I have outlined today are only a few of the many reasons 
why we need to repeal this law, both the individual and employer 
mandates. We need to fix health care. Everybody knows that. But we 
don't need to fix ObamaCare. We need to give peace of mind to the 
families hurt by ObamaCare.
  Now, no one is saying go back to the system we had before. We need 
reforms to our health care system every day. ObamaCare is costing 
millions of dollars. But with this law--what the President has called 
``this thing''--we may have mandated greater coverage for all but not 
access to care and at a cost that is unaffordable. Let me repeat that. 
We may have mandated greater coverage for all--if that was the goal of 
my friends across the aisle--but not access to care and at a cost that 
is unaffordable. That is not a health care plan.
  Perhaps some can afford the rising premiums, but can you actually go 
see your doctor and receive treatment or is your deductible too high? 
And is your doctor still available to you? Will your doctor spend at 
least 5 minutes with you--5 minutes with you--or more time filling out 
forms or electronic medical records? And are those records secure?
  Any day now the Supreme Court will hand down its decision in King v. 
Burwell. This is the case that will determine the legality of the 
administration's regulation extending health insurance subsidies to 
people in States that use the Federal insurance exchange. And we will 
see--we will see--if the Court decides that the law should be 
implemented as written by this Congress--with all of us on this side of 
the aisle voting no--or implemented as interpreted by the 
administration.
  This is similarly troubling for Kansas, where we have a federally 
facilitated exchange. If these tax subsidies go away, 77,000 Kansans 
and millions of Americans, will be affected. These individuals would be 
confronted with ObamaCare's true cost--true cost--and would face much 
higher premiums, with only the administration to blame for recklessly 
offering tens of billions of dollars in subsidies they had no authority 
to offer, if the Court rules that way.
  A ruling against the administration would also free many of these 
Kansans from the individual mandate penalty if that coverage is too 
expensive for them and they, therefore, would qualify for an 
affordability exemption.
  The employer mandate penalties would also be unenforceable. Employers 
can then add employees above the 50 threshold without fear of penalty 
and increase workers' hours to more than 30 hours per week.

[[Page S4262]]

  If the Court invalidates the subsidies, we will be ready. We will be 
ready on this side of the aisle with our solutions to help mitigate the 
pain for those individuals harmed by the administration and provide 
States greater flexibility and build a bridge away from ObamaCare.
  However the Court rules, I know that I and everybody on this side of 
the aisle will continue fighting to repeal this harmful law and replace 
it with true health care reforms that lower costs, lift the burden on 
our job creators, and restore the all-important relationship between a 
doctor and a patient.
  The test to fix health care, not ObamaCare, is coming soon. Let's fix 
health care.
  I yield the floor.


                            Vote Explanation

  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, on June 4, I was not present to vote on 
Senator Jeanne Shaheen's amendment to the National Defense 
Authorization Act for FY 2016, amendment No. 1494 to H.R. 1735. I would 
have voted against this measure.
  Madam President, as well, had I been present for the vote on 
amendment No. 1889, I would have voted no on this amendment. I do not 
support telegraphing to the enemy what interrogation techniques we will 
or won't use and denying future Commanders in Chief and intelligence 
professionals important tools for protecting the American people and 
the U.S. homeland.


 Maritime Partner Capacity Building Efforts in the Asia-Pacific Region

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, in the interests of moving the defense 
bill forward I withdraw my amendments, Nos. 2038 and 2056.
  These amendments were intended address a set of issues where I share 
a concern with the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services 
Committee that the U.S. needs to make additional concerted effort and 
provide additional focus to our maritime partner capacity building 
efforts in the Asia-Pacific region. Indeed, the chairman included a 
significant provision in this bill for a South China Sea initiative 
which I support. My efforts were intended to compliment the work of the 
chairman and assure that we have a fully articulated and whole-of-
government approach to this issue, with both the Department of Defense 
and the Department of State fully and appropriately engaged.
  The chairman and I have had some positive discussions on this issue 
in recent days, and I have received his assurances that my concerns 
will be addressed as this legislation moves forward. And I also intend 
to make sure that other aspects of this issue are addressed in 
legislation that the Foreign Relations Committee will take up, and 
where I look to the chairman for his partnership and continued 
leadership on this issue.
  With those assurances--and given the deep and shared commitment the 
chairman and I have on this issue--I do not see a need to press forward 
for a vote on my amendments at this time.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Maryland for his consideration. 
I can assure him that we share a common set of concerns and common set 
of goals on this issue. We have discussed a pathway forward that 
addresses the questions raised by his proposed amendments, and I look 
forward to working with him going forward. And I very much look forward 
to continuing to work with him on this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia
  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise today to thank colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle for the debate and votes we will be casting today on 
the National Defense Authorization Act. We have come together in a 
bipartisan fashion, and we have spent significant time in committee and 
now on the floor to deal with countless provisions. This act is nothing 
if not detailed with countless provisions that are critical to the 
defense of the Nation.
  We have a long tradition of bipartisanship in this body on the NDAA. 
The Senate passes an NDAA in one form or another every year, and that 
can't be said about any other piece of legislation. I want to 
congratulate the new chairman, Senator McCain, and the new ranking 
member, Senator Reed, and I want to congratulate my colleagues who 
serve together on the committee, including our Presiding Officer, and 
also all of our staff, both our personal staff and committee staff--I 
see some committee staff here--because this is a significant amount of 
work.
  There are many important provisions in the NDAA that affect our 
national security, and my Commonwealth of Virginia is deeply connected 
to the American military. In addition to grand items, the NDAA also 
examines in some excruciating detail some very, very fine points.
  Just to give a few examples, the NDAA includes a provision dealing 
with storage facilities that are needed to help us combat rust on 
military vehicles, the transmission systems that are used in some army 
land vehicles, the reflective markings and lights that are used on 
military air fields, one particular military barracks that has sewage, 
mold, hot water, and rodent problems, and we even deal in the NDAA with 
some details of West Point's football program--some of the athletic 
programs at West Point.
  But after all this minute analysis and debate and discussion over the 
past weeks, both in committee and on the floor, I do notice something a 
little bit strange. While Congress is very willing to debate and vote 
on all things great and small concerning our military, there is one 
thing we don't want to debate or vote on--whether the United States 
should be at war, whether we should be at war with ISIL. We will vote 
on shipbuilding, we will vote on military pensions, we will vote on 
vehicle rust, and we will vote on barracks mold. But we don't want to 
vote on whether the Nation should be at war.
  I proposed an amendment to the NDAA with Senator Flake and Senator 
Manchin expressing the sense of the Senate that we should have an 
authorization debate about whether we should be at war with ISIL, and 
the amendment that I proposed was ruled nongermane--so barracks mold, 
yes; vehicle rust, yes; the athletic programs at West Point, yes; 
whether we should be at war, nongermane to the Defense authorization 
act.
  Interestingly, we even took a vote on the floor of the Senate in the 
NDAA about whether we should arm the Kurds in a war that Congress has 
not authorized that we could debate and vote on; but whether we should 
be at war we have not debated and voted upon.
  So I went back and looked at article I of the Constitution. I found 
that there is no requirement that Congress vote on barracks mold or 
rust prevention or military airfield lighting. Certainly we can and 
should take up those matters because each of those matters--even if 
they just affect one barracks or one airfield--is about the safety of 
our troops and military personnel. Of course we should take them up. 
But there is nothing in the Constitution that requires that we take 
them up and debate and vote on them. But we are required to debate and 
vote to authorize war. Article I, section 8, clearly declares that 
Congress shall have the power to declare war--not the President; 
Congress. Yet, on this item, on this large item, on this largest of 
items, we are unwilling to debate and vote.
  The war against ISIL is now in its 11th month; more than 3,500 U.S. 
airstrikes, more than 3,000 U.S. forces now in Iraq. U.S. 
servicemembers and American hostages have lost their lives in the 
battle against ISIL. The cost of the war to the American taxpayer is 
now more than $2.5 billion--an average cost of $9 million a day. The 
ISIL threat is spreading, the mission expanding.
  In response to ISIL advances in the Anbar Province, the 
administration recently announced that an additional 450 trainers would 
be deployed to train and support Iraqi security forces.
  So my question as a strong supporter of the NDAA is a simple one: How 
much longer will we allow war to be waged without Congress even being 
willing to have a debate about the strategy and scope of the mission? 
How much longer will we keep asking servicemembers to risk their lives 
without Congress doing the basic job of authorizing this war?
  U.S. airstrikes started on August 8--313 days ago. Let me put this in 
a historic perspective. The 1-year anniversary of this war is 
approaching quickly. Congressional inaction on it is already of 
historic proportions.

[[Page S4263]]

  World War I: It took President Wilson 33 days to bring an 
authorization to Congress. Congress acted in 4 days.
  World War II: It took President Roosevelt 1 day to bring a request to 
Congress. Congress acted on the same day.
  The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution: President Johnson brought a resolution 
to Congress within 3 days. Congress acted 5 days thereafter.
  The invasion of Kuwait in gulf war 1: It took 160 days for the 
President to bring an authorization to Congress, but Congress acted 
within 4 days in approving an authorization.
  The 9/11 attacks: President Bush came the same day to Congress. It 
took 3 days for Congress to act.
  In this war against ISIL, it took the President nearly 6 months to 
bring an authorization to Congress, and it is now more than 4 months 
since that happened--313 days--and Congress has said virtually nothing.
  I appreciate that Chairman Corker and Ranking Member Cardin have made 
a recent commitment to discuss an ISIL authorization in the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee, which is the committee of jurisdiction. I 
understand that. Senator Flake and I have introduced a bipartisan 
proposal to show that there is bipartisan support for this mission, and 
we have been pushing to have the matter heard.
  Yesterday, in a debate on the House floor, the chairman of the HASC 
committee stated plainly that it is time that we ``ought to have a real 
AUMF debate.''
  So I am here to support the NDAA and the good work our chair and 
ranking member and all the members have done. But I am here to point 
out that on day 313, if we are willing to deal with important, narrow, 
small issues, we should be finally willing to address the most 
important issue we have before us. I challenge my colleagues to do this 
and to bring the same amount of attention and bipartisanship to 
debating whether we should send American troops to war as we are 
willing to apply to barracks mold and vehicle rust.
  With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, with the bill managers' permission, I 
ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I know the bill managers are working on 
a final agreement, and I would defer to them at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


Amendments Nos. 1974, as Modified; 2030; 1472, as Modified; 1890; 1705; 
  1720; 1708; 1908; 1678; 1811; 1825; 2020; 2050, as Modified; 1474; 
1901; 1902; 1563; 1703; 1944, as Modified; 1747; 2006; 1931; 2011; and 
                       1916 to Amendment No. 1463

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the ranking member and I have a small 
package of amendments that have been cleared by both sides.
  Notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII and adoption of the 
McCain substitute, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
amendments be called up and agreed to en bloc: McCain No. 1974, as 
modified; Murkowski No. 2030; Vitter No. 1472, as modified; Daines No. 
1890; Coats No. 1705; Flake No. 1720; Gardner No. 1708; Enzi No. 1908; 
Paul No. 1678; Hatch No. 1811; Fischer No. 1825; King No. 2020; 
Menendez No. 2050, as modified; Coons No. 1474; Murphy No. 1901; Warren 
No. 1902; Blumenthal No. 1563; Durbin No. 1703; Tester No. 1944, as 
modified; Casey No. 1747; Schatz No. 2006; Leahy No. 1931; Ayotte No. 
2011; and Bennet No. 1916.
  These have been agreed to by both sides, and I thank all Members for 
the agreement of this package. I am sorry it is not larger, but it is 
equally divided between both sides of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are called up and agreed to en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 1974, as modified; 2030; 1472, as modified; 
1890; 1705; 1720; 1708; 1908; 1678; 1811; 1825; 2020; 2050, as 
modified; 1474; 1901; 1902; 1563; 1703; 1944, as modified; 1747; 2006; 
1931; 2011; and 1916) agreed to en bloc are as follows:

                    amendment no. 1974, as modified

    (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress on the security and 
     protection of Iranian dissidents living in Camp Liberty, Iraq)

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

     SEC. 1230. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE SECURITY AND PROTECTION 
                   OF IRANIAN DISSIDENTS LIVING IN CAMP LIBERTY, 
                   IRAQ.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The residents of Camp Liberty, Iraq, renounced violence 
     and unilaterally disarmed more than a decade ago.
       (2) The United States recognized the residents of the 
     former Camp Ashraf who now reside in Camp Liberty as 
     ``protected persons'' under the Fourth Geneva Convention and 
     committed itself to protect the residents.
       (3) The deterioration in the overall security situation in 
     Iraq has increased the vulnerability of Camp Liberty 
     residents to attacks from proxies of the Iranian 
     Revolutionary Guards Corps and Sunni extremists associated 
     with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
       (4) The increased vulnerability underscores the need for an 
     expedited relocation process and that these Iranian 
     dissidents will neither be safe nor secure in Camp Liberty.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the United States should--
       (1) take prompt and appropriate steps in accordance with 
     international agreements to promote the physical security and 
     protection of Camp Liberty residents;
       (2) urge the Government of Iraq to uphold its commitments 
     to the United States to ensure the safety and well-being of 
     those living in Camp Liberty;
       (3) urge the Government of Iraq to ensure continued and 
     reliable access to food, clean water, medical assistance, 
     electricity and other energy needs, and any other equipment 
     and supplies necessary to sustain the residents during 
     periods of attack or siege by external forces;
       (4) oppose the extradition of Camp Liberty residents to 
     Iran;
       (5) implement a strategy to provide for the safe, secure, 
     and permanent relocation of Camp Liberty residents that 
     includes a relocation plan, including a detailed outline of 
     the steps that would need to be taken by recipient countries, 
     the United States, the United Nations High Commissioner for 
     Refugees (UNHCR), and Camp residents to relocate the 
     residents to other countries;
       (6) encourage continued close cooperation between the 
     residents of Camp Liberty and the authorities in the 
     relocation process; and
       (7) assist the United Nations High Commissioner for 
     Refugees in expediting the ongoing resettlement of all 
     residents of Camp Liberty to safe locations outside Iraq.


                           amendment no. 2030

   (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress on the coordination of 
 hunting, fishing, and other recreational activities on military land)

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

     SEC. 2815. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON COORDINATION OF HUNTING, 
                   FISHING, AND OTHER RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES ON 
                   MILITARY LAND.

       It is the sense of Congress that, in situations where 
     military lands are open to public access for hunting, 
     fishing, and other recreational activities, the Department of 
     Defense should seek to ensure that coordination with State 
     fish and wildlife managers, tribes, and local governments 
     occurs sufficiently in advance of traditional hunting, 
     fishing, and recreational use seasons to facilitate 
     communication with hunting, fishing, and recreational user 
     groups.


                    amendment no. 1472, as modified

  (Purpose: To exclude AbilityOne goods from the authority to acquire 
 goods and services manufactured in Afghanistan, central Asian states, 
                             and Djibouti)

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

     SEC. 884. EXCEPTION FOR ABILITYONE GOODS FROM AUTHORITY TO 
                   ACQUIRE GOODS AND SERVICES MANUFACTURED IN 
                   AFGHANISTAN AND CENTRAL ASIAN STATES.

       (a) Exclusion of Certain Items Not Manufactured in 
     Afghanistan.--Section 886 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (10 U.S.C. 2302 note) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``and except as 
     provided in subsection (d),'' after ``subsection (b),''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Exclusion of Items on the AbilityOne Procurement 
     Catalog.--The authority under subsection (a) of this section 
     shall not be available for the procurement of any good that 
     is contained in the procurement catalog described in section 
     8503(a) of title 41 in Afghanistan if such good can be 
     produced and delivered by a qualified nonprofit agency for 
     the blind or a nonprofit agency for other severely disabled 
     in a timely fashion to support mission requirements.''.
       (b) Exclusion of Certain Items Not Manufactured in Central 
     Asian States.--Section 801 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84; 
     123 Stat. 2399) is amended--

[[Page S4264]]

       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``and except as 
     provided in subsection (h),'' after ``subsection (b),''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(h) Exclusion of Items on the AbilityOne Procurement 
     Catalog.--The authority under subsection (a) shall not be 
     available for the procurement of any good that is contained 
     in the procurement catalog described in section 8503(a) of 
     title 41 if such good can be produced and delivered by a 
     qualified nonprofit agency for the blind or a nonprofit 
     agency for other severely disabled in a timely fashion to 
     support mission requirements.''.


                           amendment no. 1890

(Purpose: To modify the immediate applicability of basic allowance for 
 housing for married members assigned for duty within normal commuting 
                               distance)

       On page 213, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
       (3) Preservation of current bah for certain other married 
     members.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the amount of basic 
     allowance for housing payable to a member of the uniformed 
     services under section 403 of title 37, United States Code, 
     as of September 30, 2015, shall not be reduced by reason of 
     the amendment made by subsection (a) unless--
       (A) the member and the member's spouse undergo a permanent 
     change of station requiring a change of residence;
       (B) the member and the member's spouse move into or 
     commence living in on-base housing; or


                           amendment no. 1705

(Purpose: To provide for military exchanges between senior officers and 
               officials of the United States and Taiwan)

       At the end of subtitle E of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. 1264. MILITARY EXCHANGES BETWEEN SENIOR OFFICERS AND 
                   OFFICIALS OF THE UNITED STATES AND TAIWAN.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense should carry out 
     a program of exchanges of senior military officers and senior 
     officials between the United States and Taiwan designed to 
     improve military to military relations between the United 
     States and Taiwan.
       (b) Exchanges Described.--For the purposes of this section, 
     an exchange is an activity, exercise, event, or observation 
     opportunity between members of the Armed Forces and officials 
     of the Department of Defense, on the one hand, and armed 
     forces personnel and officials of Taiwan, on the other hand.
       (c) Focus of Exchanges.--The exchanges under the program 
     carried out pursuant to subsection (a) shall include 
     exchanges focused on the following:
       (1) Threat analysis.
       (2) Military doctrine.
       (3) Force planning.
       (4) Logistical support.
       (5) Intelligence collection and analysis.
       (6) Operational tactics, techniques, and procedures.
       (7) Humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.
       (d) Civil-military Affairs.--The exchanges under the 
     program carried out pursuant to subsection (a) shall include 
     activities and exercises focused on civil-military relations, 
     including parliamentary relations.
       (e) Location of Exchanges.--The exchanges under the program 
     carried out pursuant to subsection (a) shall be conducted in 
     both the United States and Taiwan.
       (f) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``senior military officer'', with respect to 
     the Armed Forces, means a general or flag officer of the 
     Armed Forces on active duty.
       (2) The term ``senior official'', with respect to the 
     Department of Defense, means a civilian official of the 
     Department of Defense at the level of Assistant Secretary of 
     Defense or above.


                           amendment no. 1720

 (Purpose: To authorize transportation to transfer ceremonies for the 
family and next of kin of members of the Armed Forces who die overseas 
                    during humanitarian operations)

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

     SEC. 622. TRANSPORTATION TO TRANSFER CEREMONIES FOR FAMILY 
                   AND NEXT OF KIN OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES 
                   WHO DIE OVERSEAS DURING HUMANITARIAN 
                   OPERATIONS.

       Section 481f(e)(1) of title 37, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``(including during a humanitarian 
     relief operation)'' after ``located or serving overseas''.


                           amendment no. 1708

 (Purpose: To require a strategy to promote United States interests in 
                     the Indo-Asia-Pacific region)

       At the end of subtitle E of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. 1264. STRATEGY TO PROMOTE UNITED STATES INTERESTS IN THE 
                   INDO-ASIA-PACIFIC REGION.

       (a) Strategy.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the President shall develop an 
     overall strategy to promote United States interests in the 
     Indo-Asia-Pacific region. Such strategy shall be informed by 
     the following:
       (1) The national security strategy of the United States for 
     2015 set forth in the national security strategy report 
     required under section 108(a)(3) of the National Security Act 
     of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 5043(a)(3)), as such strategy relates to 
     United States interests in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region.
       (2) The 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), as it 
     relates to United States interests in the Indo-Asia-Pacific 
     region.
       (3) The 2015 Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review 
     (QDDR), as it relates to United States interests in the Indo-
     Asia-Pacific region.
       (4) The strategy to prioritize United States defense 
     interests in the Asia-Pacific region as contained in the 
     report required by section 1251(a) of the Carl Levin and 
     Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291; 128 Stat. 3570).
       (5) The integrated, multi-year planning and budget strategy 
     for a rebalancing of United States policy in Asia submitted 
     to Congress pursuant to section 7043(a) of the Department of 
     State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs 
     Appropriations Act, 2014 (division K of the Consolidated 
     Appropriations Act, 2014 (Public Law 113-76)).
       (b) Presidential Policy Directive.--The President shall 
     issue a Presidential Policy Directive to appropriate 
     departments and agencies of the United States Government that 
     contains the strategy developed under subsection (a) and 
     includes implementing guidance to such departments and 
     agencies.
       (c) Relation to Agency Priority Goals and Annual Budget.--
       (1) Agency priority goals.--In identifying agency priority 
     goals under section 1120(b) of title 31, United States Code, 
     for each appropriate department and agency of the United 
     States Government, the head of such department or agency, or 
     as otherwise determined by the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget, shall take into consideration the 
     strategy developed under subsection (a) and the Presidential 
     Policy Directive issued under subsection (b).
       (2) Annual budget.--The President shall, acting through the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget, ensure that 
     the annual budget submitted to Congress under section 1105 of 
     title 31, United States Code, includes a separate section 
     that clearly highlights programs and projects that are being 
     funded in the annual budget that relate to the strategy 
     developed under subsection (a) and the Presidential Policy 
     Directive issued under subsection (b).


                           amendment no. 1908

    (Purpose: To provide for a small business procurement ombudsman)

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

     SEC. 884. SMALL BUSINESS PROCUREMENT OMBUDSMAN.

       (a) In General.--The small business offices in the Office 
     of the Secretary of Defense and the military departments 
     shall serve as intermediaries between small businesses and 
     contracting officials prior to the award of contracts in 
     cases where a small business prospective contractor notifies 
     the small business office that it has reason to believe that 
     the contracting process has been modified to preclude a small 
     business from bidding on the contract or would give another 
     contractor an unfair competitive advantage.
       (b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to preclude a contractor from exercising the right 
     to initiate a bid protest under a contract.


                           amendment no. 1678

(Purpose: To provide for the more accurate and complete enumeration of 
 members of the Armed Forces in any tabulation of total population by 
                       the Secretary of Commerce)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. IMPROVED ENUMERATION OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES 
                   IN ANY TABULATION OF TOTAL POPULATION BY 
                   SECRETARY OF COMMERCE.

       (a) In General.--Section 141 of title 13, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following:
       ``(g) Effective beginning with the 2020 decennial census of 
     population, in taking any tabulation of total population by 
     States, the Secretary shall take appropriate measures to 
     ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that all members 
     of the Armed Forces deployed abroad on the date of taking 
     such tabulation are--
       ``(1) fully and accurately counted; and
       ``(2) properly attributed to the State in which their 
     permanent duty station or homeport is located on such 
     date.''.
       (b) Construction.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall not be construed to affect the residency status of any 
     member of the Armed Forces under any provision of law other 
     than title 13, United States Code.


                           amendment no. 1811

           (Purpose: To provide for sustainment enhancement)

       On page 375, line 4, insert ``, which includes a 
     sustainment strategy,'' after ``strategy''.
       On page 377, line 13, strike ``(d) In this section'' and 
     insert the following:
       ``(9) A sustainment strategy which includes all aspects of 
     the total life cycle management of the weapon system, 
     including product support, logistics, product support 
     engineering, supply chain integration, maintenance, 
     acquisition logistics, and all aspects of software 
     sustainment.
       ``(d) Independent Cost Estimate.--The Director of Cost 
     Analysis and Program Evaluation shall perform an evaluation 
     of the

[[Page S4265]]

     sustainment portion of the acquisition strategy required by 
     subsection (c)(9) prior to the Milestone B decision.
       ``(e) In this section
       On page 410, after line 21, add the following:

     SEC. 852. SUSTAINMENT ENHANCEMENT.

       (a) Assessment Expansion of Functions of Assistant 
     Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness to 
     Include Sustainment Functions.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees 
     a report setting forth an assessment of the feasibility and 
     advisability of--
       (1) assigning to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
     Logistics and Materiel Readiness--
       (A) functions relating to the sustainment strategy required 
     under section 2431a(c)(9) of Title 10, United States Code, as 
     added by section 841 of this Act; and
       (B) functions relating to manufacturing and industrial base 
     policy currently being carried out within the Office of the 
     Secretary of Defense; and
       (2) redesignating such Assistant Secretary (with such 
     functions so assigned and together with the current logistics 
     and material readiness functions of such Assistant Secretary) 
     as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the Department of Defense does not place sufficient 
     emphasis on sustainment of a weapon system during the entire 
     acquisition process; and
       (2) the Department of Defense should address this 
     deficiency and ensure that all aspect of weapon system 
     sustainment are carefully considered throughout the entire 
     Integrated Defense Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics 
     Life Cycle Management System.


                           Amendment No. 1825

       (Purpose: To authorize appropriations for national security 
     aspects of the Merchant Marine for fiscal years 2016 and 
     2017, and for other purposes.)

  (The amendment is printed in the Record of June 8, 2015, under ``Text 
of Amendments.'')


                           amendment no. 2020

  (Purpose: To demonstrate the effects of a method to facilitate the 
 disposal of excess Army property and management of underutilized and 
unutilized property by providing an exemption from certain requirements 
  for off-site use and off-site removal only of non-mobile properties)

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

     SEC. 2815. EXEMPTION OF ARMY OFF-SITE USE AND OFF-SITE 
                   REMOVAL ONLY NON-MOBILE PROPERTIES FROM CERTAIN 
                   EXCESS PROPERTY DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Excess or unutilized or underutilized non-
     mobile property of the Army that is situated on non-excess 
     land shall be exempt from the requirements of title V of the 
     McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411 et 
     seq.) upon a determination by the Secretary of the Army 
     that--
       (1) the property is not feasible to relocate;
       (2) the property is located in an area to which the general 
     public is denied access in the interest of national security; 
     and
       (3) the exemption would facilitate the efficient disposal 
     of excess property or result in more efficient real property 
     management.
       (b) Consultation.--Before making an initial determination 
     under the authority provided under subsection (a), and 
     periodically thereafter, the Secretary of the Army shall 
     consult with the Executive Director of the United States 
     Interagency Council on Homelessness on types of non-mobile 
     properties that may be feasible for relocation and suitable 
     to assist the homeless.
       (b) Sunset.--The authority under subsection (a) shall 
     expire on September 30, 2017.


                    amendment no. 2050, as modified

(Purpose: To require a report on the security relationship between the 
               United States and the Republic of Cyprus)

       At the end of subtitle F of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. 1274. REPORT ON THE SECURITY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE 
                   UNITED STATES AND THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense and the 
     Secretary of State shall jointly submit to the appropriate 
     congressional committees a report on the security 
     relationship between the United States and the Republic of 
     Cyprus.
       (b) Elements.--The report required under subsection (a) 
     shall include the following elements:
       (1) A description of ongoing military and security 
     cooperation between the United States and the Republic of 
     Cyprus.
       (2) A discussion of potential steps for enhancing the 
     bilateral security relationship between the United States and 
     Cyprus, including steps to enhance the military and security 
     capabilities of the Republic of Cyprus.
       (3) An analysis of the effect on the bilateral security 
     relationship of the United States policy to deny applications 
     for licenses and other approvals for the export of defense 
     articles and defense services to the armed forces of Cyprus.
       (4) An analysis of the extent to which such United States 
     policy is consistent with overall United States security and 
     policy objectives in the region.
       (5) An assessment of the potential impact of lifting such 
     United States policy.
       (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``appropriate 
     congressional committees'' means--
       (1) the congressional defense committees; and
       (2) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of 
     Representatives.


                           amendment no. 1474

 (Purpose: To propose an alternative to section 1204, relating to the 
               National Guard State Partnership Program)

       Strike section 1204 and insert the following:

     SEC. 1204. PERMANENCE AND MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES 
                   RELATING TO NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Authority.--Subsection (a)(1) of section 1205 of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 
     (Public Law 113-66; 127 Stat. 897; 32 U.S.C. 107 note) is 
     amended by adding at the end before the period the following: 
     ``to support the national interests and security cooperation 
     goals and objectives of the United States, including 
     applicable policy and guidelines for United States security 
     sector assistance''.
       (b) Limitation.--Subsection (b) of such section is amended 
     by inserting ``that is not'' after ``an activity that the 
     Secretary of Defense determines is a matter''.
       (c) Procedures.--Such section, as so amended, is further 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (c) through (g) as 
     subsections (d) through (h), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Procedures.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Chief of the National Guard Bureau 
     shall--
       ``(A) establish, maintain, and update as appropriate a list 
     of core competencies to support each program established 
     under subsection (a), collectively and for each State and 
     territory, and shall submit for approval to the Secretary of 
     Defense the list of core competencies and additional 
     information needed to make use of such core competencies; and
       ``(B) designate a director for each State and territory who 
     shall be responsible for the coordination of activities under 
     a program established under subsection (a) for such State or 
     territory and reporting on activities under the program.
       ``(2) Military-to-civilian core competencies.--The 
     Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary 
     of State, may conduct an activity under a program established 
     under subsection (a) relating to military-to-civilian core 
     competencies.''.
       (d) National Guard State Partnership Program Fund.--
     Subsection (e) of such section (as redesignated) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) National guard state partnership program fund.--
       ``(A) Establishment.--
       ``(i) Books of dod.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the 
     Secretary of Defense shall establish on the books of the 
     Department of Defense a National Guard State Partnership 
     Program Fund.
       ``(ii) Books of treasury.--If not later than February 1, 
     2016, the Secretary determines and reports to the appropriate 
     congressional committees that in the opinion of the Secretary 
     a fund such as the Fund described in clause (i) should be 
     established on the books of the Department of the Treasury, 
     the Secretary of the Treasury shall establish on the books of 
     the Treasury on that date a Fund to be known as the National 
     Guard State Partnership Program Fund.
       ``(B) Credits.--In administering the Fund established under 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall, to the extent the 
     Secretary determines it to be appropriate, provide for the 
     following amounts to be credited to the Fund:
       ``(i) Amounts authorized and appropriated to carry out 
     operations under this section.
       ``(ii) Amounts that the Secretary of Defense transfers, in 
     such amounts as provided in appropriations Acts, to the Fund 
     from amounts authorized and appropriated to the Department of 
     Defense, including amounts authorized to be appropriated for 
     the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard.
       ``(C) Inclusion in annual budget.--The President shall 
     include the Fund established under subparagraph (A) in the 
     budget that the President submits to Congress under section 
     1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, for each fiscal year 
     in which the authority under subsection (a) is in effect.''.
       (e) Annual Report.--Paragraph (2)(B) of subsection (f) of 
     such section (as redesignated) is amended--
       (1) in clause (iii), by inserting ``or other government 
     organizations'' after ``and security forces'';
       (2) in clause (iv), by adding at the end before the period 
     the following: ``and country'';
       (3) in clause (v), by striking ``training'' and inserting 
     ``activities''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(vi) An assessment of the extent to which the activities 
     conducted during the previous year met the objectives 
     described in clause (v).
       ``(vii) The list of core competencies required by 
     subsection (c)(1) and any update to any changes to the list 
     of core competencies required by subsection (c)(1).''.

[[Page S4266]]

       (f) Definitions.--Subsection (h) of such section (as 
     redesignated) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking subparagraphs (A) and (B) 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(A) the congressional defense committees; and
       ``(B) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of 
     Representatives.'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3);
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) (as amended) the 
     following:
       ``(2) Core competencies.--The term `core competencies' 
     means military-to-military and military-to-civilian skills 
     and capabilities of the National Guard, consistent with the 
     roles and missions of the Armed Forces as established by the 
     Secretary of Defense.''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) State.--The term `State' means each of the several 
     States and the District of Columbia.
       ``(5) Territory.--The term `territory' means the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.''.
       (g) Permanent Authority.--Such section is further amended 
     by striking subsection (i).


                           Amendment No. 1901

        (Purpose: To require reporting on foreign procurements)

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

     SEC. 884. ANNUAL REPORT ON FOREIGN PROCUREMENTS.

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

     ``Sec. 2338. Reporting on foreign purchases

       ``(a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after the end of 
     fiscal year 2016, and each fiscal year thereafter, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit to the appropriate 
     congressional defense committees a report listing specific 
     procurements by the Department of Defense in that fiscal year 
     of articles, materials, or supplies valued greater than 
     $5,000,000, indexed to inflation, using the exception under 
     section 8302(a)(2)(A) of title 41. This report may be 
     submitted as part of the report required under section 8305 
     of such title.
       ``(b) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In 
     this section, the term `appropriate congressional committees' 
     means the congressional defense committees, the Committee on 
     Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and 
     the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House 
     of Representatives.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 2337 
     the following new item:

``2338. Reporting on foreign purchases.''.


                           Amendment No. 1902

 (Purpose: To require the Comptroller General of the United States to 
 conduct a study on problem gambling among members of the Armed Forces)

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

     SEC. 738. COMPTROLLER GENERAL STUDY ON GAMBLING AND PROBLEM 
                   GAMBLING BEHAVIOR AMONG MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 
                   FORCES.

       (a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall conduct a study on gaming facilities at military 
     installations and problem gambling among members of the Armed 
     Forces.
       (b) Matters Included.--The study conducted under subsection 
     (a) shall include the following:
       (1) With respect to gaming facilities at military 
     installations, disaggregated by each branch of the Armed 
     Forces--
       (A) the number, type, and location of such gaming 
     facilities;
       (B) the total amount of cash flow through such gaming 
     facilities; and
       (C) the amount of revenue generated by such gaming 
     facilities for morale, welfare, and recreation programs of 
     the Department of Defense.
       (2) An assessment of the prevalence of and particular risks 
     for problem gambling among members of the Armed Forces, 
     including such recommendations for policies and programs to 
     be carried out by the Department to address problem gambling 
     as the Secretary considers appropriate.
       (3) An assessment of the ability and capacity of military 
     health care personnel to adequately diagnose and provide 
     dedicated treatment for problem gambling, including--
       (A) a comparison of treatment programs of the Department 
     for alcohol abuse, illegal substance abuse, and tobacco 
     addiction with treatment programs of the Department for 
     problem gambling; and
       (B) an assessment of whether additional training for 
     military health care personnel on providing treatment for 
     problem gambling would be beneficial.
       (4) An assessment of the financial counseling and related 
     services that are available to members of the Armed Forces 
     and their dependents who are impacted by problem gambling.
       (c) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall 
     submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on 
     the results of the study conducted under subsection (a).
       (2) Appropriate committees of congress defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' 
     means--
       (A) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate; and
       (B) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives.


                           amendment no. 1563

  (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of 
    Veterans Affairs to jointly submit to Congress a report on the 
 implementation of new or updated electronic health records in certain 
                             environments)

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

     SEC. 738. REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF DATA SECURITY AND 
                   TRANSMISSION STANDARDS FOR ELECTRONIC HEALTH 
                   RECORDS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than June 1, 2016, the Secretary 
     of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     jointly submit to Congress a report on the standards for 
     security and transmission of data to be implemented by the 
     Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs 
     in deploying the new or updated, as the case may be, 
     electronic health record system of each such Department 
     (required to be deployed by each such Department under 
     section 713 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66; 10 U.S.C. 1071 note)) at 
     military installations and in field environments.
       (b) Transmission of Data.--The report required by 
     subsection (a) shall include information on standards for 
     transmission of data between the Department of Defense and 
     the Department of Veterans Affairs and standards for 
     transmission of data between each such Department and private 
     sector entities.


                           Amendment No. 1703

(Purpose: To authorize the provision of post-traumatic stress disorder 
 training to military and security forces of the Government of Ukraine)

       On page 636, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
       (10) Training and best practices to identify and treat 
     post-traumatic stress disorder among Ukrainian Armed Forces 
     and National Guard personnel.


                    amendment no. 1944, as Modified

  (Purpose: To reform and improve personnel security, insider threat 
            detection and prevention, and physical security)

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

     SEC. 1085. REFORM AND IMPROVEMENT OF PERSONNEL SECURITY, 
                   INSIDER THREAT DETECTION AND PREVENTION, AND 
                   PHYSICAL SECURITY.

       (a) Personnel Security and Insider Threat Protection in 
     Department of Defense.--
       (1) Plans and schedules.--Consistent with the Memorandum of 
     the Secretary of Defense dated March 18, 2014, regarding the 
     recommendations of the reviews of the Washington Navy Yard 
     shooting, the Secretary of Defense shall develop plans and 
     schedules--
       (A) to implement a continuous evaluation capability for the 
     national security population for which clearance 
     adjudications are conducted by the Department of Defense 
     Central Adjudication Facility, in coordination with the 
     Suitability Executive Agent, the Security Executive Agent, 
     and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget;
       (B) to produce a Department-wide insider threat strategy 
     and implementation plan, which includes--
       (i) resourcing for the Defense Insider Threat Management 
     and Analysis Center (DITMAC) and component insider threat 
     programs, and
       (ii) alignment of insider threat protection programs with 
     continuous evaluation capabilities and processes for 
     personnel security;
       (C) to centralize the authority, accountability, and 
     programmatic integration responsibilities, including fiscal 
     control, for personnel security and insider threat protection 
     under the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence;
       (D) to align the Department's consolidated Central 
     Adjudication Facility under the Under Secretary of Defense 
     for Intelligence;
       (E) to develop a defense security enterprise reform 
     investment strategy to ensure a consistent, long-term focus 
     on funding to strengthen all of the Department's security and 
     insider threat programs, policies, functions, and information 
     technology capabilities, including detecting threat behaviors 
     conveyed in the cyber domain, in a manner that keeps pace 
     with evolving threats and risks;
       (F) to resource and expedite deployment of the Identity 
     Management Enterprise Services Architecture (IMESA); and
       (G) to implement the recommendations contained in the study 
     conducted by the Director of Cost Analysis and Program 
     Evaluation required by section 907 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66; 10 
     U.S.C. 1564 note), including, specifically, the 
     recommendations to centrally manage and regulate Department 
     of Defense requests for personnel security background 
     investigations.
       (2) Reporting requirement.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall submit to the appropriate committees of 
     Congress a report describing the plans and schedules required 
     under paragraph (1).

[[Page S4267]]

       (b) Physical and Logical Access.--Not later than 270 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act--
       (1) the Secretary of Defense shall define physical and 
     logical access standards, capabilities, and processes 
     applicable to all personnel with access to Department of 
     Defense installations and information technology systems, 
     including--
       (A) periodic or regularized background or records checks 
     appropriate to the type of physical or logical access 
     involved, the security level, the category of individuals 
     authorized, and the level of access to be granted;
       (B) standards and methods for verifying the identity of 
     individuals seeking access; and
       (C) electronic attribute-based access controls that are 
     appropriate for the type of access and facility or 
     information technology system involved;
       (2) the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and 
     the Chair of the Performance Accountability Council, in 
     coordination with the Secretary of Defense, and the 
     Administrator of General Services, and in consultation with 
     representatives from stakeholder organizations, shall design 
     a capability to share and apply electronic identity 
     information across the Government to enable real-time, risk-
     managed physical and logical access decisions; and
       (3) the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in 
     conjunction with the Director of the Office of Personnel 
     Management and in consultation with representatives from 
     stakeholder organizations, shall establish investigative and 
     adjudicative standards for the periodic or regularized 
     reevaluation of the eligibility of an individual to retain 
     credentials issued pursuant to Homeland Security Presidential 
     Directive 12 (dated August 27, 2004), as appropriate, but not 
     less frequently than the authorization period of the issued 
     credentials.
       (c) Security Enterprise Management.--Not later than 180 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget shall--
       (1) formalize the Security, Suitability, and Credentialing 
     Line of Business;
       (2) submit a report to the appropriate congressional 
     committee that describes plans--
       (A) for oversight by the Office of Management and Budget of 
     activities of the executive branch of the Government for 
     personnel security, suitability, and credentialing;
       (B) to designate enterprise shared services to optimize 
     investments;
       (C) to define and implement data standards to support 
     common electronic access to critical Government records; and
       (D) to reduce the burden placed on Government data 
     providers by centralizing requests for records access and 
     ensuring proper sharing of the data with appropriate 
     investigative and adjudicative elements.
       (d) Reciprocity Management.--Not later than 2 years after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Chair of the 
     Performance Accountability Council shall ensure that--
       (1) a centralized system is available to serve as the 
     reciprocity management system for the Federal Government; and
       (2) the centralized system described in paragraph (1) is 
     aligned with, and incorporates results from, continuous 
     evaluation and other enterprise reform initiatives.
       (e) Reporting Requirements Implementation.--Not later than 
     180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Chair 
     of the Performance Accountability Council, in coordination 
     with the Security Executive Agent, the Suitability Executive 
     Agent, and the Secretary of Defense, shall jointly develop a 
     plan to--
       (1) implement the Security Executive Agent Directive on 
     common, standardized employee and contractor security 
     reporting requirements;
       (2) establish and implement uniform reporting requirements 
     for employees and Federal contractors, according to risk, 
     relative to the safety of the workforce and protection of the 
     most sensitive information of the Government; and
       (3) ensure that reported information is shared 
     appropriately.
       (f) Access to Criminal History Records for National 
     Security and Other Purposes.--
       (1) Definition.--Section 9101(a) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) The terms `Security Executive Agent' and `Suitability 
     Executive Agent' mean the Security Executive Agent and the 
     Suitability Executive Agent, respectively, established under 
     Executive Order 13467 (73 Fed. Reg. 38103), or any successor 
     thereto.''.
       (2) Covered agencies.--Section 9101(a)(6) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(G) The Department of Homeland Security.
       ``(H) The Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
       ``(I) An Executive agency that--
       ``(i) is authorized to conduct background investigations 
     under a Federal statute; or
       ``(ii) is delegated authority to conduct background 
     investigations in accordance with procedures established by 
     the Security Executive Agent or the Suitability Executive 
     Agent under subsection (b) or (c)(iv) of section 2.3 of 
     Executive Order 13467 (73 Fed. Reg. 38103), or any successor 
     thereto.
       ``(J) A contractor that conducts a background investigation 
     on behalf of an agency described in subparagraphs (A) through 
     (I).''.
       (3) Applicable purposes of investigations.--Section 
     9101(b)(1) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (D) as 
     clauses (i) through (iv), respectively, and adjusting the 
     margins accordingly;
       (B) in the matter preceding clause (i), as redesignated--
       (i) by striking ``the head of'';
       (ii) by inserting ``all'' before ``criminal history record 
     information''; and
       (iii) by striking ``for the purpose of determining 
     eligibility for any of the following:'' and inserting ``, in 
     accordance with Federal Investigative Standards jointly 
     promulgated by the Suitability Executive Agent and Security 
     Executive Agent, for the purpose of--
       ``(A) determining eligibility for--'';
       (C) in clause (i), as redesignated--
       (i) by striking ``Access'' and inserting ``access''; and
       (ii) by striking the period and inserting a semicolon;
       (D) in clause (ii), as redesignated--
       (i) by striking ``Assignment'' and inserting 
     ``assignment''; and
       (ii) by striking the period and inserting ``or 
     positions;'';
       (E) in clause (iii), as redesignated--
       (i) by striking ``Acceptance'' and inserting 
     ``acceptance''; and
       (ii) by striking the period and inserting ``; or'';
       (F) in clause (iv), as redesignated--
       (i) by striking ``Appointment'' and inserting 
     ``appointment'';
       (ii) by striking ``or a critical or sensitive position''; 
     and
       (iii) by striking the period and inserting ``; or''; and
       (G) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) conducting a basic suitability or fitness assessment 
     for Federal or contractor employees, using Federal 
     Investigative Standards jointly promulgated by the Security 
     Executive Agent and the Suitability Executive Agent in 
     accordance with--
       ``(i) Executive Order 13467 (73 Fed. Reg. 38103), or any 
     successor thereto; and
       ``(ii) the Office of Management and Budget Memorandum 
     `Assignment of Functions Relating to Coverage of Contractor 
     Employee Fitness in the Federal Investigative Standards', 
     dated December 6, 2012;
       ``(C) credentialing under the Homeland Security 
     Presidential Directive 12 (dated August 27, 2004); and
       ``(D) Federal Aviation Administration checks required 
     under--
       ``(i) the Federal Aviation Administration Drug Enforcement 
     Assistance Act of 1988 (subtitle E of title VII of Public Law 
     100-690; 102 Stat. 4424) and the amendments made by that Act; 
     or
       ``(ii) section 44710 of title 49.''.
       (4) Biometric and biographic searches.--Section 9101(b)(2) 
     of title 5, United States Code, is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(2)(A) A State central criminal history record depository 
     shall allow a covered agency to conduct both biometric and 
     biographic searches of criminal history record information.
       ``(B) Nothing in subparagraph (A) shall be construed to 
     prohibit the Federal Bureau of Investigation from requiring a 
     request for criminal history record information to be 
     accompanied by the fingerprints of the individual who is the 
     subject of the request.''.
       (5) Use of most cost-effective system.--Section 9101(e) of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(6) If a criminal justice agency is able to provide the 
     same information through more than 1 system described in 
     paragraph (1), a covered agency may request information under 
     subsection (b) from the criminal justice agency, and require 
     the criminal justice agency to provide the information, using 
     the system that is most cost-effective for the Federal 
     Government.''.
       (6) Sealed or expunged records; juvenile records.--
       (A) In general.--Section 9101(a)(2) of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (i) in the first sentence, by inserting before the period 
     the following: ``, and includes any analogous juvenile 
     records''; and
       (ii) by striking the third sentence and inserting the 
     following: ``The term includes those records of a State or 
     locality sealed pursuant to law if such records are 
     accessible by State and local criminal justice agencies for 
     the purpose of conducting background checks.''.
       (B) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the Federal Government should not uniformly reject applicants 
     for employment with the Federal Government or Federal 
     contractors based on--
       (i) sealed or expunged criminal records; or
       (ii) juvenile records.
       (7) Interaction with law enforcement and intelligence 
     agencies abroad.--Section 9101 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Upon request by a covered agency and in accordance 
     with the applicable provisions of this section, the Deputy 
     Assistant Secretary of State for Overseas Citizens Services 
     shall make available criminal history record information 
     collected by the Deputy Assistant Secretary with respect to 
     an individual who is under investigation by the covered 
     agency regarding any interaction of the individual with a law 
     enforcement agency or intelligence agency of a foreign 
     country.''.
       (8) Clarification of security requirements for contractors 
     conducting background investigations.--Section 9101 of

[[Page S4268]]

     title 5, United States Code, as amended by this subsection, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) If a contractor described in subsection (a)(6)(J) 
     uses an automated information delivery system to request 
     criminal history record information, the contractor shall 
     comply with any necessary security requirements for access to 
     that system.''.
       (9) Clarification regarding adverse actions.--Section 7512 
     of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``or'';
       (B) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``, or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(F) a suitability action taken by the Office under 
     regulations prescribed by the Office, subject to the rules 
     prescribed by the President under this title for the 
     administration of the competitive service.''.
       (10) Annual report by suitability and security clearance 
     performance accountability council.--Section 9101 of title 5, 
     United States Code, as amended by this subsection, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) The Suitability and Security Clearance Performance 
     Accountability Council established under Executive Order 
     13467 (73 Fed. Reg. 38103), or any successor thereto, shall 
     submit to the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on 
     Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Committee on 
     Appropriations, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of 
     the Senate, and the Committee on Armed Services, the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Committee 
     on Appropriations, and the Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence of the House of Representatives, an annual 
     report that--
       ``(1) describes efforts of the Council to integrate 
     Federal, State, and local systems for sharing criminal 
     history record information;
       ``(2) analyzes the extent and effectiveness of Federal 
     education programs regarding criminal history record 
     information;
       ``(3) provides an update on the implementation of best 
     practices for sharing criminal history record information, 
     including ongoing limitations experienced by investigators 
     working for or on behalf of a covered agency with respect to 
     access to State and local criminal history record 
     information; and
       ``(4) provides a description of limitations on the sharing 
     of information relevant to a background investigation, other 
     than criminal history record information, between--
       ``(A) investigators working for or on behalf of a covered 
     agency; and
       ``(B) State and local law enforcement agencies.''.
       (11) GAO report on enhancing interoperability and reducing 
     redundancy in federal critical infrastructure protection 
     access control, background check, and credentialing 
     standards.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall submit to the congressional defense committees, 
     the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report on the background 
     check, access control, and credentialing requirements of 
     Federal programs for the protection of critical 
     infrastructure and key resources.
       (B) Contents.--The Comptroller General shall include in the 
     report required under subparagraph (A)--
       (i) a summary of the major characteristics of each such 
     Federal program, including the types of infrastructure and 
     resources covered;
       (ii) a comparison of the requirements, whether mandatory or 
     voluntary in nature, for regulated entities under each such 
     program to--

       (I) conduct background checks on employees, contractors, 
     and other individuals;
       (II) adjudicate the results of a background check, 
     including the utilization of a standardized set of 
     disqualifying offenses or the consideration of minor, non-
     violent, or juvenile offenses; and
       (III) establish access control systems to deter 
     unauthorized access, or provide a security credential for any 
     level of access to a covered facility or resource;

       (iii) a review of any efforts that the Screening 
     Coordination Office of the Department of Homeland Security 
     has undertaken or plans to undertake to harmonize or 
     standardize background check, access control, or 
     credentialing requirements for critical infrastructure and 
     key resource protection programs overseen by the Department; 
     and
       (iv) recommendations, developed in consultation with 
     appropriate stakeholders, regarding--

       (I) enhancing the interoperability of security credentials 
     across critical infrastructure and key resource protection 
     programs;
       (II) eliminating the need for redundant background checks 
     or credentials across existing critical infrastructure and 
     key resource protection programs;
       (III) harmonizing, where appropriate, the standards for 
     identifying potentially disqualifying criminal offenses and 
     the weight assigned to minor, nonviolent, or juvenile 
     offenses in adjudicating the results of a completed 
     background check; and
       (IV) the development of common, risk-based standards with 
     respect to the background check, access control, and security 
     credentialing requirements for critical infrastructure and 
     key resource protection programs.

       (g) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' means--
       (A) the congressional defense committees;
       (B) the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee 
     on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; 
     and
       (C) the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the 
     Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       (2) the term ``Performance Accountability Council'' means 
     the Suitability and Security Clearance Performance 
     Accountability Council established under Executive Order 
     13467 (73 Fed. Reg. 38103), or any successor thereto.


                           Amendment No. 1747

(Purpose: To require the Department of Defense to support the security 
            of Afghan women and girls during and after 2015)

       At the end of subtitle A of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. 1209. SUPPORT FOR SECURITY OF AFGHAN WOMEN AND GIRLS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Through the sacrifice and dedication of members of the 
     Armed Forces, civilian personnel, and our Afghan partners as 
     well as the American people's generous investment, oppressive 
     Taliban rule has given way to a nascent democracy in 
     Afghanistan. It is in our national security interest to help 
     prevent Afghanistan from ever again becoming a safe haven and 
     training ground for international terrorism and to solidify 
     and preserve the gains our men and women in uniform fought so 
     hard to establish.
       (2) The United States through its National Action Plan on 
     Women, Peace, and Security has made firm commitments to 
     support the human rights of the women and girls of 
     Afghanistan. The National Action Plan states that ``the 
     engagement and protection of women as agents of peace and 
     stability will be central to United States efforts to promote 
     security, prevent, respond to, and resolve conflict, and 
     rebuild societies''.
       (3) As stated in the Department of Defense's October 2014 
     Report on Progress Toward Security and Stability in 
     Afghanistan, the Department of Defense and the International 
     Security Assistance Force (ISAF) ``maintain a robust program 
     dedicated to improving the recruitment, retention, and 
     treatment of women in the Afghan National Security Forces 
     (ANSF), and to improving the status of Afghan women in 
     general''.
       (4) According to the Department of Defense's October 2014 
     Report on Progress Toward Security and Stability in 
     Afghanistan, the ``Afghan MoI showed significant support for 
     women in the MoI and is taking steps to protect and empower 
     female police and female MoI staff''. Although some positive 
     steps have been made, progress remains slow to reach the 
     MoI's goal of recruiting 10,000 women in the Afghan National 
     Police (ANP) in the next 10 years.
       (5) According to Inclusive Security, women only make up 
     approximately 1 percent of the Afghan National Police. There 
     are about 2,200 women serving in the police force, fewer than 
     the goal of 5,000 women set by the Government of Afghanistan.
       (6) According to the International Crisis Group, there are 
     not enough female police officers to staff all provincial 
     Family Response Units (FRUs). United Nations Assistance 
     Mission Afghanistan and the Office of the High Commissioner 
     for Refugees found that ``in the absence of Family Response 
     Units or visible women police officers, women victims almost 
     never approach police stations willingly, fearing they will 
     be arrested, their reputations stained or worse''.
       (b) Sense of Congress on Promotion of Security of Afghan 
     Women.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) it is in the national security interests of the United 
     States to prevent Afghanistan from again becoming a safe 
     haven and training ground for international terrorism;
       (2) as an important part of a strategy to achieve this 
     objective and to help Afghanistan achieve its full potential, 
     the United States Government should continue to regularly 
     press the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan 
     to commit to the meaningful inclusion of women in the 
     political, economic, and security transition process and to 
     ensure that women's concerns are fully reflected in relevant 
     negotiations;
       (3) the United States Government and the Government of 
     Afghanistan should reaffirm their commitment to supporting 
     Afghan civil society, including women's organizations, as 
     agreed to during the meeting between the International 
     Community and the Government of Afghanistan on the Tokyo 
     Mutual Accountability Framework (TMAF) in July 2013;
       (4) the United States Government should continue to support 
     and encourage efforts to recruit and retain women in the 
     Afghan National Security Forces, who are critical to the 
     success of NATO's Resolute Support Mission and future 
     Enduring Partnership mission; and
       (5) the United States should bid on no less than one gender 
     advisor billet within the Resolute Support Mission Gender 
     Advisory Unit and continue to work with other countries to 
     ensure that the Resolute Support Mission Gender Advisory Unit 
     billets are fully staffed.
       (c) Plan to Promote Security of Afghan Women.--

[[Page S4269]]

       (1) Reporting requirement.--The Secretary of Defense, in 
     conjunction with the Secretary of State, shall include in the 
     report required under section 1225 of the Carl Levin and 
     Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291; 128 Stat. 3550)--
       (A) an assessment of the security of Afghan women and 
     girls, including information regarding efforts to increase 
     the recruitment and retention of women in the ANSF; and
       (B) an assessment of the implementation of the plans for 
     the recruitment, integration, retention, training, treatment, 
     and provision of appropriate facilities and transportation 
     for women in the ANSF, including the challenges associated 
     with such implementation and the steps being taken to address 
     those challenges.
       (2) Plan required.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary of Defense shall, in 
     coordination with the Secretary of State, to the extent 
     practicable, support the efforts of the Government of 
     Afghanistan to promote the security of Afghan women and girls 
     during and after the security transition process through the 
     development and implementation by the Government of 
     Afghanistan of an Afghan-led plan that should include the 
     elements described in this paragraph.
       (B) Training.--The Secretary of Defense, working with the 
     NATO-led Resolute Support mission should encourage the 
     Government of Afghanistan to develop--
       (i) measures for the evaluation of the effectiveness of 
     existing training for Afghan National Security Forces on this 
     issue;
       (ii) a plan to increase the number of female security 
     officers specifically trained to address cases of gender-
     based violence, including ensuring the Afghan National 
     Police's Family Response Units (FRUs) have the necessary 
     resources and are available to women across Afghanistan;
       (iii) mechanisms to enhance the capacity for units of 
     National Police's Family Response Units to fulfill their 
     mandate as well as indicators measuring the operational 
     effectiveness of these units;
       (iv) a plan to address the development of accountability 
     mechanisms for ANA and ANP personnel who violate codes of 
     conduct related to the human rights of women and girls, 
     including female members of the ANSF; and
       (v) a plan to develop training for the ANA and the ANP to 
     increase awareness and responsiveness among ANA and ANP 
     personnel regarding the unique security challenges women 
     confront when serving in those forces.
       (C) Enrollment and treatment.--The Secretary of Defense, in 
     cooperation with the Afghan Ministries of Defense and 
     Interior, shall seek to assist the Government of Afghanistan 
     in including as part of the plan developed under subparagraph 
     (A) the development and implementation of a plan to increase 
     the number of female members of the ANA and ANP and to 
     promote their equal treatment, including through such steps 
     as providing appropriate equipment, modifying facilities, and 
     ensuring literacy and gender awareness training for recruits.
       (D) Allocation of funds.--
       (i) In general.--Of the funds available to the Department 
     of Defense for the Afghan Security Forces Fund for Fiscal 
     Year 2016, no less than $10,000,000 should be used for the 
     recruitment, integration, retention, training, and treatment 
     of women in the ANSF as well as the recruitment, training, 
     and contracting of female security personnel for future 
     elections.
       (ii) Types of programs and activities.--Such programs and 
     activities may include--

       (I) efforts to recruit women into the ANSF, including the 
     special operations forces;
       (II) programs and activities of the Afghan Ministry of 
     Defense Directorate of Human Rights and Gender Integration 
     and the Afghan Ministry of Interior Office of Human Rights, 
     Gender and Child Rights;
       (III) development and dissemination of gender and human 
     rights educational and training materials and programs within 
     the Afghan Ministry of Defense and the Afghan Ministry of 
     Interior;
       (IV) efforts to address harassment and violence against 
     women within the ANSF;
       (V) improvements to infrastructure that address the 
     requirements of women serving in the ANSF, including 
     appropriate equipment for female security and police forces, 
     and transportation for policewomen to their station
       (VI) support for ANP Family Response Units; and
       (VII) security provisions for high-profile female police 
     and army officers.


                           amendment no. 2006

(Purpose: Relating to the policies of the Department of Defense on the 
   travel of next of kin to participate in the dignified transfer of 
 remains of members of the Armed Forces and civilian employees of the 
                Department of Defense who die overseas)

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

     SEC. 622. POLICIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ON TRAVEL OF 
                   NEXT OF KIN TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DIGNIFIED 
                   TRANSFER OF REMAINS OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 
                   FORCES AND CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT 
                   OF DEFENSE WHO DIE OVERSEAS.

       (a) Review of Policies.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense shall carry out a 
     review of the current policies of the Department of Defense 
     on the travel for next of kin to participate in the dignified 
     transfer of remains of members of the Armed Forces and 
     civilian employees of the Department who die overseas.
       (2) Elements.--The review required by this subsection shall 
     include the following:
       (A) An assessment of the changes to Department instructions 
     and Federal regulations necessary to provide Government 
     funded travel to the next of kin to participate in the 
     dignified transfer of remains of members of the Armed Forces 
     and civilian employees of the Department who die overseas, 
     regardless whether the death occurred in a combat area or a 
     non-combat area.
       (B) An action plan and timeline for making the changes 
     described in subparagraph (A).
       (b) Modification of Policies.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), not 
     later than February 1, 2016, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     take appropriate actions to modify the policies of the 
     Department in order to provide Government funded travel for 
     the next of kin to participate in the dignified transfer of 
     remains of members of the Armed Forces and civilian employees 
     of the Department of Defense who die overseas, regardless 
     whether the death occurs in a combat area or a non-combat 
     area.
       (2) Exception.--The Secretary is not required to modify the 
     policies of the Department as described in paragraph (1) if, 
     by not later than March, 1, 2016, the Secretary certifies, in 
     writing, to the congressional defense committees that such 
     action is not in the best interest of the United States. The 
     certification shall include the following:
       (A) An assessment and reevaluation by the Secretary of the 
     rational for excluding the next of kin from Government funded 
     travel if the death of a member of the Armed Forces or 
     civilian employee of the Department overseas occurs in a non-
     combat area.
       (B) Recommendations for alternative plans to ensure that 
     the next of kin of members of the Armed Forces and civilian 
     employees of the Department who die overseas in a non-combat 
     area may participate in the dignified transfer of the remains 
     of the deceased at Dover Port Mortuary, including through the 
     actions of appropriate non-governmental organizations.


                           amendment no. 1931

 (Purpose: To improve the annual reports of the Chief of the National 
Guard Bureau on the ability of the National Guard to meets its mission)

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

     SEC. 1065. ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE CHIEF OF THE NATIONAL GUARD 
                   BUREAU ON THE ABILITY OF THE NATIONAL GUARD TO 
                   MEETS ITS MISSIONS.

       Section 10504(a) of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``The Chief of the National 
     Guard Bureau'';
       (2) in paragraph (1), as so designated, by striking ``, 
     through the Secretaries of the Army and the Air Force,'';
       (3) by striking the second sentence; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(2) Each report shall include the following:
       ``(A) An assessment, prepared in conjunction with the 
     Secretaries of the Army and the Air Force, of the ability of 
     the National Guard to carry out its Federal missions.
       ``(B) An assessment, prepared in conjunction with the chief 
     executive officers of the States and territories, of the 
     ability of the National Guard to carry out emergency support 
     functions of the National Response Framework.
       ``(3) Each report may be submitted in classified and 
     unclassified versions.''.


                           amendment no. 2011

  (Purpose: To provide for cooperation between the United States and 
                  Israel on anti-tunnel capabilities)

       Strike section 1272 and insert the following:

     SEC. 1272. UNITED STATES-ISRAEL ANTI-TUNNEL COOPERATION.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Tunnels can be used for criminal purposes, such as 
     smuggling drugs, weapons, or humans, or for terrorist or 
     military purposes, such as launching surprise attacks or 
     detonating explosives underneath civilian or military 
     infrastructure.
       (2) Tunnels have been a growing threat on the southern 
     border of the United States for years.
       (3) In the conflict in Gaza in 2014, terrorists used 
     tunnels to conduct attacks against Israel.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) it is in the national security interests of the United 
     States to develop technology to detect and counter tunnels, 
     and the best way to do this is to partner with other affected 
     countries;
       (2) the Administration should, on a joint basis with 
     Israel, carry out research, development, test, and evaluation 
     of anti-tunnel capabilities to detect, map, and neutralize 
     underground tunnels that threaten the United States or 
     Israel; and
       (3) the Administration should use developed anti-tunnel 
     capabilities to better protect the United States and deployed 
     United States military personnel.
       (c) Authority To Establish Anti-tunnel Capabilities Program 
     With Israel.--

[[Page S4270]]

       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense, upon request of 
     the Ministry of Defense of Israel and in consultation with 
     the Secretary of State and the Director of National 
     Intelligence, is authorized to carry out research, 
     development, test, and evaluation, on a joint basis with 
     Israel, to establish anti-tunnel capabilities to detect, map, 
     and neutralize underground tunnels that threaten the United 
     States or Israel. Such authority includes authority to 
     construct facilities and install equipment necessary to carry 
     out research, development, test, and evaluation so 
     authorized. Any activities carried out pursuant to such 
     authority shall be conducted in a manner that appropriately 
     protects sensitive information and United States and Israel 
     national security interests.
       (2) Report.--The activities described in paragraph (1) and 
     subsection (d) may be carried out after the Secretary of 
     Defense submits to the appropriate committees of Congress a 
     report setting forth the following:
       (A) A memorandum of agreement between the United States and 
     Israel regarding sharing of research and development costs 
     for the capabilities described in paragraph (1), and any 
     supporting documents.
       (B) A certification that the memorandum of agreement--
       (i) requires sharing of costs of projects, including in-
     kind support, between the United States and Israel;
       (ii) establishes a framework to negotiate the rights to any 
     intellectual property developed under the memorandum of 
     agreement; and
       (iii) requires the United States Government to receive 
     quarterly reports on expenditure of funds, if any, by the 
     Government of Israel, including a description of what the 
     funds have been used for, when funds were expended, and an 
     identification of entities that expended the funds.
       (d) Assistance in Connection With Program.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense is authorized to 
     provide procurement, maintenance, and sustainment assistance 
     to Israel in support of the anti-tunnel capabilities 
     research, development, test, and evaluation activities 
     authorized in subsection (c)(1).
       (2) Report.--Assistance may not be provided under paragraph 
     (1) until 15 days after the Secretary submits to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress a report setting forth a 
     detailed description of the assistance to be provided.
       (3) Matching contribution.--Assistance may not be provided 
     under this subsection unless the Government of Israel 
     contributes an amount not less than the amount of assistance 
     to be so provided to the program, project, or activity for 
     which the assistance is to be so provided.
       (e) Quarterly Reports.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     submit to the appropriate committees of Congress on a 
     quarterly basis a report that contains a copy of the most 
     recent quarterly report provided by the Government of Israel 
     to the Department of Defense pursuant to subsection 
     (c)(2)(B)(iii).
       (f) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' 
     means--
       (1) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on 
     Foreign Relations, the Committee on Homeland Security, and 
     the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and
       (2) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on 
     Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Homeland Security, and the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
       (g) Sunset.--The authority in this section to carry out 
     activities described in subsection (c), and to provide 
     assistance described in subsection (d), shall expire on the 
     date that is three years after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.


                           amendment no. 1916

 (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to designate a 
construction agent for certain construction projects by the Department 
                          of Veterans Affairs)

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

     SEC. 1085. DESIGNATION OF CONSTRUCTION AGENT FOR CERTAIN 
                   CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS BY DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
                   AFFAIRS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     seek to enter into an agreement subject to subsections (b), 
     (c), and (e) of section 1535 of title 31, United States Code, 
     with the Army Corps of Engineers or another entity of the 
     Federal Government to serve, on a reimbursable basis, as the 
     construction agent on all construction projects of the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs specifically authorized by 
     Congress after the date of the enactment of this Act that 
     involve a total expenditure of more than $100,000,000, 
     excluding any acquisition by exchange.
       (b) Agreement.--Under the agreement entered into under 
     subsection (a), the construction agent shall provide design, 
     procurement, and construction management services for the 
     construction, alteration, and acquisition of facilities of 
     the Department.

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all 
postcloture time on H.R. 1735 expire at 1:45 p.m. today, with the time 
equally divided between the managers or their designees for debate 
only.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I have asked the members of the 
committee to convene in the President's Room at 1:30 p.m., if they 
would, because there is a portion of the bill, the annex, that needs to 
be approved. We need a quorum for that so that we can move forward with 
the final vote on the bill.
  I also wish to thank all Members on both sides of the aisle for the 
conduct of this debate in consideration of a very large and very 
complex piece of legislation.
  I especially thank my friend from Rhode Island, who has worked 
diligently, along with his staff, to see that we arrive at this point. 
We have a lot of other hurdles to go through, but without getting 
through this one, we couldn't have been prepared for those that are 
laid before us before the President puts his signature on this most 
important piece of legislation.
  I yield to my friend from Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I, too, want to commend the chairman and 
his staff for extraordinarily diligent, cooperative, and careful work. 
I am pleased to be here to support this block of amendments. As the 
chairman noted, we are on the verge of passage of the legislation. Then 
we will be able to move forward and address other issues.
  I thank the chairman for his cooperation and his great leadership.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                      Defense Appropriations Bill

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I congratulate the chairman and ranking 
member of the Armed Services Committee for this heroic effort, doing, 
as the chairman said, the most important business we can do as part of 
the Federal Government; that is, keeping America safe and making sure 
we keep our commitments to those who volunteer to serve, many in harm's 
way, to protect our liberties.
  In a couple hours, we will vote to pass the Defense authorization 
bill, and that is an important bipartisan accomplishment. It is just 
another step in a new Congress which has acted in a bipartisan way to 
deal with a number of challenges confronting the country.
  I am more optimistic today than I have been in a long time that the 
Senate is finally back to work and Congress is doing what the American 
people who elected us sent us here to do, and that is to do their work 
and to represent them to the best of our ability, which is one reason 
why I have come to the floor to express some of my concerns at what we 
have heard from the Democratic leadership about their intentions with 
regard to the next piece of legislation we turn to--the Defense 
appropriations bill. As we all know, the Democratic leader and some 
Democrats in his caucus have threatened not to move forward on this 
Defense appropriations bill.
  I want to talk about the consequences in the real world of holding up 
this Defense appropriations bill and particularly how it will affect my 
home State of Texas.
  Obviously, the Defense appropriations bill will provide the military 
with resources necessary to meet the significant demands they face and 
we face as a country around the world but most basically to defend our 
country and to keep us safe.
  This bill provides for training and readiness funds and makes sure 
our troops are well prepared to carry out any mission that might be 
assigned to them anywhere in the world.
  The appropriations bill provides the money for critical modernization 
of our aircraft, ships, ground vehicles, and other equipment so that 
our troops can fight with the best cutting-edge weapons systems at our 
disposal so they can accomplish their objective.
  Perhaps most importantly, this legislation helps make sure our troops 
and military families enjoy a good quality of life. We have an all-
volunteer military, and the family members of those who wear the 
uniform serve no less than the ones who wear the uniform. So making 
sure the families of our military members enjoy a good quality of life 
is very important. We will never be able to repay our troops for all 
they

[[Page S4271]]

have given us, but we can at least provide appropriate benefits to 
their families to help make their lives a little easier.
  This bill also includes funding to actually pay our troops their 
salary and provides them a modest, well-deserved raise.
  Like the Presiding Officer, I am proud of those who serve our Nation 
and our military and our home States. Nearly 120,000 Texans are serving 
on Active Duty today, as well as more than 55,000 Guardsmen and 
Reservists. We have 15 major military installations in Texas, which 
have more than 168,000 Active and Reserve component servicemembers 
assigned to them. These world-class bases, posts, air stations, and 
depots are critical facilities where our troops train for combat and 
learn the skills they need in order to accomplish their mission and 
where we maintain essential military equipment. So when I consider the 
possibility that for a cynical political reason some might decide to 
block this appropriations bill that actually literally pays the salary 
of the troops, I am very disappointed. I hope they will reconsider.
  These resources we will vote on--starting this afternoon, we will 
start that process--go to places such as Fort Bliss and Fort Hood, TX, 
homes to the finest heavy ground combat units in the world.
  Fort Bliss in El Paso sits on more than 1 million acres. It is an 
irreplaceable training range for our troops, and it is the Army's 
second largest installation by size. It is the proud home of the Army's 
famed 1st Armored Division. And Fort Hood, which serves as home to both 
III Corps and the storied 1st Cavalry Division, has more Army brigades 
than any Army installation in the country.
  When I think about Members of the Senate actually considering the 
possibility of blocking pay for our troops and support for our 
military, I also think about bases such as Dyess Air Force Base in 
Abilene, TX. This key base is home to units that have deployed time and 
time again in recent years in support of combat missions in Iraq, 
Afghanistan, and elsewhere, including the 317th Airlift Group. Dyess is 
also home to the 7th Bomb Wing, one of only two B-1 strategic bomber 
wings in the U.S. Air Force. The 7th has been the tip of the spear in 
the fight against ISIL, conducting airstrikes against the terrorist 
army in Iraq and in Syria.
  We are also proud in my State to boast the Corpus Christi Army Depot, 
the largest rotary wing repair facility in the world. When our Army 
helicopters come back from battle, many of them are pretty beat up and 
barely operable. They typically make a pit stop in Corpus Christi to 
make sure our battle-tested warfighting equipment is ready for the next 
challenge.
  Between our naval air stations at Corpus Christi and Kingsville, 
Texas provides the proving ground and crucible for more than 1,000 new 
Navy and Marine aviators each year. Shortly after they leave Texas, 
they find themselves in skies over Iraq or Syria or landing in rough 
seas, in near-zero visibility, on aircraft carriers bordering hostile 
shores around the globe. But these bases represent only a fraction of 
the U.S. military presence in Texas. All of our military installations 
are integral to making sure our military is prepared, trained, healthy, 
and ready for action.

  The Defense appropriations bill that some have threatened to 
filibuster in order to extract a negotiation about more government 
spending makes sure that the servicemembers assigned to those bases and 
countless others across our Nation have what they need.
  We ask a lot of our men and women in uniform. The very least we can 
do is pass legislation that provides for the training and equipment 
they need in order to accomplish their mission and to ensure them the 
quality of life they and their families have so richly earned.
  I find it very troubling and, indeed, dumbfounding that some of our 
colleagues from across the aisle who have already voted overwhelmingly 
to move forward on the Defense authorization bill would today talk 
about blocking the necessary appropriations bill to actually carry out 
that policy that we will pass shortly in the Defense authorization 
bill.
  I believe that to be consistent after such a big vote, as I 
anticipate we will have on the Defense authorization bill, any notion 
of blocking the appropriations bill that would actually pay for those 
policies to be carried out should simply evaporate.
  So I hope our colleagues across the aisle--many of whom have said 
they actually support the policies behind this legislation--will defy 
their party's leadership and their misguided advice about blocking this 
legislation in order to extract a negotiation on more government 
spending and will decide instead to move this legislation forward. The 
brave men and women in Texas and throughout the country who are 
fighting on our behalf deserve nothing less. And I hope our colleagues 
who are even considering for a moment the idea of blocking the funding 
that would actually help pay our troops will reconsider and cast their 
vote in support of the troops and not cast their vote in favor of some 
cynical political strategy which will undermine our support for our 
troops.
  Madam President, 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. HEINRICH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    3rd Anniversary of DACA Program

  Mr. HEINRICH. Madam President, 3 years ago, President Obama announced 
that DREAMers--young people who were brought to the United States as 
children--would have the opportunity to apply for temporary protection 
from deportation through the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals 
Program or what has become known as DACA.
  Today, more than 660,000 young people across this Nation have 
benefitted from DACA, including more than 7,000 in my home State of New 
Mexico. These are some of our brightest students and veterans who no 
longer have to fear deportation. Not only do DREAMers want to earn an 
education and work, they want to give back to their communities and 
their country. In fact, I would suggest that DREAMers don't know how to 
be anything but American.
  We hear again and again of the remarkable stories of immigrants 
overcoming very difficult challenges in the genuine pursuit of a better 
life. Across the country, there are DREAMers working to become doctors, 
scientists, lawyers, and engineers. They want to start businesses or 
teach in classrooms. They want to contribute to America's success.
  I had the privilege of meeting these twin sisters who are pictured 
here, Jazmin and Yazmin, earlier this year. They immigrated to the 
United States with their mother from Mexico when they were just 3 years 
old.
  As students at Del Norte High School in Albuquerque, Jazmin and 
Yazmin worked hard to earn good grades, and as juniors and seniors, 
they took dual credit courses at Central New Mexico Community College.
  Jazmin will graduate magna cum laude from the University of New 
Mexico with a bachelor of business administration, concentrating in 
finance. She earned an interdisciplinary studies distinction from the 
University of New Mexico Honors College, and her sister Yazmin would go 
on to graduate magna cum laude from the University of New Mexico with a 
bachelor of science in biology and Spanish, a minor in chemistry, and 
completed the University Honors Program. She received departmental 
summa cum laude honors.
  These two young women are working tirelessly to ensure they have a 
better future for themselves and their mother.
  In August, Jazmin will begin her second year at the University of New 
Mexico School of Law, and Yazmin will begin her first year at the 
University of New Mexico School of Medicine.
  Given their immigration status, the journey for Jazmin and Yazmin to 
get to where they are today was anything but easy. They have overcome 
many hardships, including homelessness and hunger.
  After their mother--who is a single mom--suffered a stroke, it was up 
to them to find work to support their family, cover her medical costs, 
and pay for their education. To this day, there is another heavy burden 
these young women carry with them; it is

[[Page S4272]]

living with the fear that at any moment their mother, whom they love 
dearly, will be deported because of her immigration status. Under these 
circumstances, you have to ask what drives these two bright young women 
and what keeps them going, and it is simple: They want to give back to 
their communities.
  Jazmin, who is currently a summer law clerk at New Mexico's Center on 
Law and Poverty, wants to be a lawyer to ensure that every person has 
equal access to the law.
  Yazmin, who is currently a medical assistant at the Casa de Salud 
Medical Office in the South Valley, wants to be a primary care 
physician so she can help families gain access to quality health care.
  This is who DREAMers are, and I think their stories are absolutely 
inspiring.
  This young man's name is Cesar. He is 26 years old and a DACA 
recipient.
  Cesar and his family moved from Ciudad Juarez to Las Cruces, NM, when 
he was in the fifth grade.
  As a middle and high school student, he earned great grades, and 
through local scholarships he enrolled at New Mexico State University. 
He earned a bachelor degree in biology, microbiology, and Spanish, not 
to mention minors in chemistry and biochemistry.
  When he graduated from college in 2011, Cesar couldn't put his 
degrees to work because of his immigration status. So instead of 
working in the laboratory, he went to work as a landscaper.
  When the President made his DACA announcement, Cesar immediately 
applied and was approved for deferred action. Because of DACA, Cesar 
was able to work and earn an income to help pay for graduate school.
  This year, Cesar earned his master's degree in biology and a minor in 
molecular biology from New Mexico State University, where he focused 
his research on bioinformatics.
  Cesar makes it a point to get involved in the local community. He has 
volunteered at La Casa and helped with the biology graduate 
organization. He said:

       Once you start volunteering, you wish you had more time 
     because you love it so much. It can improve your outlook on 
     everything you're doing.

  Cesar's dream is to become a doctor so he can work to help prevent 
disease. Soon he will take a major step toward that goal. This coming 
school year, Cesar will be a medical and Ph.D. student at Loyola 
University in Chicago. ``DACA has changed my life,'' he said. ``Within 
two to three years, I went from working in landscaping to becoming a 
medical student.''
  The stories of Cesar, Jazmin, and Yazmin represent what makes this 
country great. They are inspiring, and there are hundreds of thousands 
of DREAMers like them across this country.
  Immigrants make the United States a more prosperous nation. In New 
Mexico, our State's remarkable history is rooted in our diversity, our 
history, and our culture, which has always been enriched by our 
immigrant communities and their family members.
  My own father is an immigrant who came to America from Nazi Germany 
in the 1930s, and I am sure many of us in this Chamber have immigrant 
roots in our own families which have contributed to America's success 
story. We are not a country that kicks out our best and brightest 
students, and we are not a nation that tears families apart.
  The current DACA Program is only a temporary solution. DACA 
recipients have to renew every 2 years in order to maintain their 
deferred status, but that is no way to live. It is unfair for these 
DREAMers to live their lives 2 years at a time. We desperately need 
robust immigration reform.
  Now, let's step back for a moment and remember that the Senate passed 
a comprehensive, bipartisan immigration bill almost 2 years ago now. 
That bill would have modernized our immigration system to meet the 
needs of our economy, provided an accountable pathway to earned 
citizenship for the undocumented workers currently living in the 
shadows, including making the DREAM Act the law of the land, and it 
would have dramatically strengthened security at our borders. 
Accountable immigration reform received 68 votes in this body and 
demonstrated the kind of legislation we can pass when we work together.
  As a nation, we value the twin promises of freedom and opportunity. 
Those ideals are important no matter where you were born. However, too 
many of my Republican colleagues don't see it that way. Several of them 
want to rescind or even defund DACA and roll back the progress we have 
made over the past 3 years.
  Why would we end such a successful program? What I would say to those 
who do this is come back to the table and work with us to pass 
immigration reform. We need pragmatic solutions to fix our broken 
immigration laws, and we need them now. Let's make the dream a reality 
after all.

  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
mandatory quorum call under rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate be waived with respect to the cloture vote on the motion to 
proceed to H.R. 2685.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Tragedy in Charleston

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I come to the floor to speak about 
the terrible news out of Charleston, which is a true tragedy. That an 
event such as this could occur at a house of worship makes it even 
worse.
  It is always awful when one of these events takes place, but to have 
it happen at a house of worship makes it even worse. Churches should be 
a place of refuge, a place where people feel safe and secure, a place 
of mercy, a place of compassion. The depth of loss these families must 
be feeling is simply awful.
  I want the American people to know the Senate is thinking of the 
families today and the victims they loved. We are also thinking of the 
entire congregation at this historic church. We will continue to do so 
as more about this tragedy is learned in the hours and days to come.
  Our hearts go out to the families who have been affected by this 
awful tragedy.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, after almost 3 weeks, we are completing 
consideration of the fiscal year 2016 National Defense Authorization 
Act. Again, I want to thank Senator McCain for what has largely been a 
bipartisan, serious consideration of issues important to the Department 
of Defense and to the national security of the United States. He has 
led the way, initially with a series of very thoughtful hearings with 
foreign policy experts setting the context for our debate.
  Then we listened to our uniformed military leaders and our Defense 
Department officials. In the process of drafting the legislation, 
before it went to the subcommittees, there was a collaboration that was 
inspired by his commitment--which he has always demonstrated--to do 
what he thought was in the best interest of the men and women who wear 
the uniform of the United States. His presence and his leadership, has, 
I think, brought us to this point where we are getting ready to 
consider a major piece of legislation on behalf of the men and women of 
the Armed Forces of the United States and of the country.
  We have considered many issues. We were briefly sidetracked by the 
cyber amendment. We all understand that the cyber bill is absolutely 
critical. In fact, I think it has to be addressed as soon as possible. 
That is probably the next piece of business we should take up in this 
Senate. But it was brought up in a procedure--in an unexpected way, in 
a way in which we could not give it the full consideration it deserves. 
So, once again, I think we should commit ourselves as a Senate to

[[Page S4273]]

bringing up this bill as rapidly as possible--in fact, I would suggest 
it as the next major piece of legislation.
  In the process of considering this National Defense Authorization 
Act, we brought a bill to the floor which had some very thoughtful and 
important provisions. Six hundred amendments were filed. We were able 
to consider many of them, both Republican and Democratic, either 
through votes on the floor in a very open process or through managers' 
packages which we put together and approved. We debated on very 
important issues--interrogation techniques, sexual assault in our 
military, and U.S. policies in Iraq and elsewhere. I think these 
debates and votes ensured that this authorization bill is better than 
it was when it left the committee.
  There is, however, one overarching problem that remains with this 
bill, and it is one that I have persistently pointed to and 
persistently argued has to be corrected, and it is the fact that the 
bill is funded through the OCO accounts in a significant way, using an 
escape valve from the Budget Control Act, which OCO provides 
exclusively for defense, with some minor deviations for other some 
national security programs and other agencies, but essentially this is 
the defense funding mechanism. As a result, what we are confronted with 
is a bill that is over-reliant upon the overseas contingency account. 
Ironically, it provides the same level of resources that the President 
asked for, but instead of putting it in the base budget, it grows OCO 
from roughly $50 billion to $90 billion, and that is all deficit 
spending. So this is not a way in which we are improving our fiscal 
situation; we are just adding $40 billion of deficit spending.
  The other aspect of this that is so critical is that if we adhere to 
the Budget Control Act, we will not adequately fund other agencies, and 
many of these other agencies are as vital to our national security as 
the Department of Defense--the FBI, Homeland Security, and the State 
Department.
  We have had speakers on floor talk about--rightfully so--this huge 
refugee crisis we are seeing all through the Middle East because of the 
instability in Iraq and Syria. Those refugees--when we try to help 
them, that help is typically sent through the State Department, through 
USAID, through those agencies, and they are still within the sequester 
caps.
  As a result, I was very pleased to offer both in the committee and on 
the floor an amendment that would essentially say: Let's stop for a 
second. We have this $39 billion of additional OCO spending that we are 
giving to the Department of Defense because it is not subject to BCA. 
Before we do that, let's put a fence around it, to put it in colloquial 
terminology, let's just say that money is there because we recognize 
that the needs of the Department of Defense are critical and they have 
to be fulfilled, but it is going to stay there until we fix the 
underlying issue, in my view, and that is the BCA, the sequestration 
issues that affect the State Department and every other Department in 
the government.
  We had a very good debate. I am thankful to the chairman for 
encouraging that debate, allowing it to take place, and for it coming 
to a vote. We lost, 54 to 46. It had strong support on our side of the 
aisle, but it was a fair and full debate and we lost. The result, 
though, is that the problem remains. We are in a situation where, if we 
continue down this pathway, we will see the OCO account as an escape 
valve for defense while everyone else is subject to sequestration. I 
don't think that is good. I don't think it is good for defense. I 
certainly don't think it is good for these other agencies, and it is 
not good for our overall national security.
  There are many who say: Don't worry about that. This is just an 
authorization bill. The appropriations bill is where we will have the 
appropriate discussion and debate.
  I think that is going to happen, but my view is that authorizations 
and appropriations are so closely related that we couldn't ignore one 
and we couldn't ignore this authorization.
  So, again, I think we have to recognize that underpinning this 
authorization, with all of its worthy programs, is this very difficult 
issue of overreliance on OCO funding.
  Then there are some who say: Well, even so, it is a 1-year fix.
  Well, I don't think that is the case at all. I think if we use these 
types of gimmicks--as some have called them--and accounting tricks 
once, our tendency to use them again will be there. In fact, once we 
use it once, it is easier to use it two, three, four, five times.
  We have had this discussion on the floor, for example, interestingly 
enough, about how medical research in the Department of Defense went 
from $25 million or so in 1992 to $13 billion today. Well, the answer 
is easy. Back then, because we had similar--not identical--arrangements 
where we capped discretionary domestic spending but uncapped defense 
spending, people went to where--the chairman referred to the Willie 
Sutton approach--the money was. It was defense. And it has grown and it 
has grown. I think that is what is going to happen again if we take 
this trajectory, this pathway, using OCO.
  I sense that if we make tough decisions today, it will benefit us in 
the long run. One of those tough decisions--and one I make very 
reluctantly--is to oppose this legislation. It is worthy legislation in 
many respects. I think we have to fix this problem, and I think we have 
to fix it now. I have tried in my efforts to focus the attention on the 
need to correct the BCA, the need to get us on a sustainable pathway 
where we do include within the base of the Department of Defense those 
funds they need to operate and then OCO really is for overseas 
contingency operations.
  Let me conclude my comments by saying there has been tremendous 
cooperation and support. It starts with the chairman. I particularly 
want to thank his staff director, Chris Brose, for his great work.
  I thank my colleagues on the Democratic side: Liz King, Gary Leeling, 
Creighton Greene, Kirk McConnell, Bill Monahan, Mike Kuiken, John 
Quirk, Jon Clark, Jonathan Epstein, Arun Seraphin, Carolyn Chuhta, Mike 
Noblet, Ozge Guzelsu, Maggie McNamara, Jody Bennett, and, once again, 
my staff director, Liz King.
  I would like to thank the floor staff. I have come to appreciate more 
than I ever knew how vital a role they play on both sides of the aisle, 
and I thank them for what they have done.
  Finally, this bill has some extraordinarily good provisions in it. 
Many of them are tough, hard, path-breaking provisions that are there 
because the chairman decided he was going to go all in on many 
different aspects, from acquisition, to troop support efforts, to 
incorporating provisions of the commission on pay and retirement, all 
of those things, and I commend him for that. It is just that I think I 
have to stand and say we have to fix this issue with respect to the 
underpinning fundamental budget approach which says: We will let BCA 
stand for every other agency, but we will be able to exploit, in a way, 
this OCO exception, and we will use it. And I think that is not the 
path we want to pursue.
  With that, and again with my thanks to the chairman, I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as we approach a final vote on the 
National Defense Authorization Act, I take this opportunity to thank my 
friend and colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed. Despite his lack 
of substantive education somewhere on the Hudson River, he has been 
thoughtful, bipartisan, and he has maintained that throughout the 
consideration of this legislation.
  We worked together through hundreds of amendments in markup and 
hundreds more during the past 2 weeks, and obviously we have some 
differences from time to time. Senator Reed has never stopped searching 
for common ground and consensus, and so this legislation would not be 
what it is without his leadership and his cooperation.
  I would just remind my friend, however, that the title of this 
legislation is ``to authorize appropriations''--not to appropriate but 
to authorize appropriations. That is the task of the Appropriations 
Committee. So the OCO issue, which he and I are largely in agreement 
on, should have been repeal of sequestration. That is an issue which 
should be addressed where the authority lies--in appropriations, not in 
authorization. We can't increase or decrease a single penny of 
authorization except what was given to us through the Budget Committee 
process, which

[[Page S4274]]

was votes and decisions made on this floor on the budget.
  So I say with respect and friendship, if there is a problem here, it 
is not with the authorization. We don't spend a penny. We authorize the 
expenditure of money. And that is an issue that my friend from Rhode 
Island and I disagree on, but it did not prohibit him, me, our staffs, 
and members of the committee on both sides of the aisle from working on 
a piece of legislation that, in my view, which is clearly subjective, 
is a reform bill--a reform bill, working together, that is almost 
unprecedented, at least in the last 30 years when you look at the 
extent and the nature of the reforms in this legislation.
  I thank the majority leader, Senator McConnell, for his commitment to 
resuming regular order. Under Senator McConnell's leadership, the 
Senate has been able to take up this critical national security 
legislation on time, allowing for thoughtful consideration of 
amendments. This is how the Senate should operate--regular order, on 
time, giving our military the certainty they need to plan and execute 
their missions.
  For 53 consecutive years, Congress has passed a National Defense 
Authorization Act. That is testimony to the vital importance of this 
legislation, which provides the necessary funding and authorities for 
our military to defend the Nation.
  But perhaps at no time in the last half century has this legislation 
ever been so critical. Over the past few months, the Senate Armed 
Services Committee has received testimony from many of America's most 
respected statesmen, thinkers, and former military commanders. These 
leaders had a common warning, and that warning is clear: America is 
facing the most diverse and complex array of crises since the Second 
World War.
  I won't go into all the different events that have taken place that 
authenticate that assertion by the most respected leaders who served 
under both Republican and Democratic administrations.
  We have faced challenges before. We marshalled our power--both soft 
and hard power--to defend the rules-based national order that is the 
foundation of our prosperity and security. We have deterred aggression, 
defended allies, defeated adversaries, and built peace through 
strength. As we look at our challenges today, the question being asked 
all over the world by both friend and foe alike and the question we 
must answer now is, Are we equal to those challenges again?
  There is only so much one piece of legislation can do to answer that 
question, but the National Defense Authorization Act before the Senate 
today is a strong first step toward rising to the challenge of an 
increasingly dangerous world. This is an ambitious piece of 
legislation, but in the times we live, we cannot afford business as 
usual in the Department of Defense. To prepare our military to confront 
our present and future national security challenges, we must champion 
the cause of defense reform, rigorously root out Pentagon waste, and 
invest in modernization and next-generation technologies to maintain 
our military technological advantage. That is what this legislation is 
all about. It is a reform bill. It tackles acquisition reform, 
headquarters and management reform, military retirement reform, and 
personnel reform.
  The bill authorizes every dollar of the President's budget request of 
$612 billion but focuses these resources more directly on our 
warfighters. The Committee on Armed Services identified $10 billion of 
excess and unnecessary spending in the budget request, and we 
reinvested those savings in the military capabilities our troops need 
to succeed. We did all of this while upholding our commitments to our 
servicemembers, retirees, and their families.

  My friends, America's military technological advantage is eroding--
and eroding fast. One of the primary causes of this is a broken Defense 
Acquisition System that takes too long, costs too much, and wastes 
billions of dollars--often on weapons programs that never become 
operational and with no one ever being held responsible. That is why 
this legislation includes the most sweeping acquisition reforms in a 
generation. We put the services back into the acquisition process, 
create new mechanisms to ensure accountability for results, streamline 
regulation, and open the defense acquisition process to our Nation's 
innovators.
  This bill advances unprecedented reforms to our military retirement 
system. Under the current 70-year-old system, 83 percent of 
servicemembers leave the service without any retirement assets. This 
system excludes the vast majority of current servicemembers who will 
not complete 20 years of uniformed service, including many veterans of 
the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The NDAA creates a modernized 
retirement system and extends retirement benefits to the vast majority 
of servicemembers through a new plan, offering more value and choice. 
Under this new plan, 75 percent of servicemembers would get retirement 
benefits. This reform is estimated to save $15 billion a year in the 
out years.
  In addition to retirement reform, the NDAA focuses on improving the 
quality of life of our military servicemembers, retirees, and their 
families. It authorizes a 1.3-percent pay raise for members of the 
uniformed services at the grade of O-6 and below. The bill authorizes 
$30 million in support for schools serving military dependent children, 
including those with severe disabilities. It includes many provisions 
to improve the military health system and TRICARE. The NDAA allows a 
TRICARE beneficiary up to four urgent care visits without making them 
get a preauthorization and requires the Department of Defense to focus 
more on health care quality, patient safety, and beneficiary 
satisfaction by making them publish health outcome measures on their 
Web sites.
  The NDAA builds on military justice reforms of the past few years to 
prevent and respond to military sexual assault. It contains a number of 
provisions aimed at strengthening the authorities of Special Victims' 
Counsel to provide services to victims of sexual assault. The 
legislation also enhances confidential reporting options for victims of 
sexual assault and increases access to timely disclosure of certain 
materials and information in connection with the prosecution of 
offenses.
  On management reform, the NDAA ensures the Department of Defense and 
the military services are using precious defense dollars to fulfill 
their missions and defend the Nation, not expand their bloated staffs. 
While staff at Army Headquarters increased 60 percent over the past 
decade, the Army is now cutting brigade combat teams. The Air Force 
evaded mandated cuts to Headquarters personnel by creating two new 
Headquarters entities, while at the same time complaining it had 
insufficient personnel to maintain combat aircraft. The NDAA directs 
targeted reductions in Headquarters and administrative staff that would 
generate $1.7 billion in savings in just the next fiscal year.
  With these savings and billions more identified, this bill invests in 
providing critical military capabilities for our warfighters and 
meeting the unfunded priorities of our service chiefs and combatant 
commanders.
  Even as challenges to maritime security increase in the Middle East 
and the Western Pacific and pressures on our shipbuilding budget 
increase, the Navy remains well below its fleet size requirement of 306 
ships. The NDAA directs savings identified in the budget request to 
accelerate Navy modernization and shipbuilding, to mitigate impacts of 
the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine replacement, and to grow the 
Navy to meet rising threats.
  As adversaries seek to counter and thwart American military power, 
the NDAA looks to the future and invests in the technologies that will 
maintain America's military technological superiority. It provides $400 
million in additional funding to support the so-called third offset 
strategy to outpace our emerging adversaries.
  The NDAA details robust assistance to our allies and partners as they 
confront urgent challenges. The legislation authorizes nearly $3.8 
billion in support of the Afghan National Security Forces.
  After an overwhelming bipartisan vote on an amendment offered by 
Senator Feinstein and myself, the NDAA reaffirms the prohibition on 
torture and ensures that every U.S. Government agency always applies 
the same effective, humane interrogation standards as the U.S. 
military. Past interrogation policies compromised our values, stained 
our national honor, and

[[Page S4275]]

did little practical good. This legislation provides greater assurances 
that never again will the United States follow that dark path of 
sacrificing our values for our short-term security needs. I thank 
Senator Feinstein for her hard work on this vitally important issue.
  Finally, this legislation contains a bipartisan compromise on how to 
address the challenge of the detention facility of Guantanamo Bay. 
President Obama has said from day one of his Presidency that he wants 
to close Guantanamo. But 6\1/2\ years into his Presidency, the 
administration has never provided a plan to do so. This legislation 
requires the administration to submit that plan. We are simply asking 
the executive branch to explain where it will hold those set for trial, 
how it will continue to detain dangerous terrorists pursuant to the 
laws of war, and how it will mitigate the risks of moving this 
population.
  If the administration can provide answers to these basic questions to 
the satisfaction of the American people and their elected 
representatives, then congressional restrictions on the movement of 
these detainees will be lifted and the plan can be implemented. If the 
Congress does not approve the plan, nothing would change. The ban on 
domestic transfers would stay in force, and the certification standards 
for foreign transfers included in the NDAA would remain.
  My friends, America has reached a key inflection point. The rules-
based international order, which has been anchored by U.S. hard power 
for seven decades, is being seriously stressed, and with it the 
foundation of our security and prosperity. It does not have to be this 
way. We can choose a better future for ourselves, make the right 
decisions now, and set our Nation on a better course.
  That is what this legislation is all about--living up to our 
constitutional duty to provide for the common defense, increasing the 
effectiveness of our military, and restoring America's global 
leadership. This legislation is a small step towards accomplishing 
these goals, but it is an important step we can take right now, 
together. We owe the brave men and women in uniform nothing less.
  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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, all postcloture time is expired.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Utah (Mr. 
Lee), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. 
McCaskill), is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 71, nays 25, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 215 Leg.]

                                YEAS--71

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker

                                NAYS--25

     Baldwin
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cardin
     Cruz
     Durbin
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hirono
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Nelson
     Paul
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Graham
     Lee
     McCaskill
     Scott
  The bill (H.R. 1735), as amended, was passed.

                          ____________________