[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 89 (Tuesday, June 7, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3492-S3511]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                           Amendment No. 4204

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bipartisan 
Inhofe-Mikulski amendment to the National Defense Act. What does our 
amendment do? It stops the privatization of commissaries, which are an 
earned benefit for our military and their families.
  Every year when the Senate debates this bill, we talk about how we 
love our troops and how we always want to support our military 
families. But if we really love our troops, we need to make sure our 
troops have the support they need. One of the earned benefits that does 
that is the commissaries. And if we love our troops, why would we want 
to proceed in this direction of privatization? Our troops don't view 
commissaries as a subsidy; they view them, as do I, as an earned 
benefit. I am fighting here to preserve this piece of the earned 
benefit compensation package.
  What are the commissaries? Since 1826, military families have been 
able to shop at a network of stores that provide modestly priced 
groceries. The commissary system is simple: If you are an Active-Duty, 
Reserve, National Guard, retired member, or a military family member, 
you have access to more than 246 commissaries worldwide. They give 
military members and their families affordability and accessibility to 
health foods.
  Senator Inhofe spoke earlier about where these commissaries are. Some 
are located in our country, and some in remote areas, and over 40 
percent are either in remote areas or overseas.
  Last year Senator Inhofe and I stood up for military family benefits 
to stop privatization. Congress adopted our amendment, but in doing so 
required a DOD study assessing privatization, which would affect 
commissaries. We needed to understand how privatization would affect 
levels of savings, quality of goods, and impact on families. DOD 
finally gave us the report on June 6, 2016. So they dropped the report 
on D-day. And guess what. It reaffirms what Senator Inhofe and I have 
been saying: We should not privatize commissaries without additional 
study. The report is simple and straightforward: We should not proceed 
with the privatization or a pilot on privatization until further study.
  First, DOD has demonstrated that privatization cannot replicate the 
savings the current commissary system provides. Second, privatization 
significantly reduces the benefits available to commissary patrons. And 
privatization would dramatically reduce the workforce, which is where 
so many military families work. The DOD cannot move

[[Page S3493]]

forward with privatization with a large number of unknowns.
  We must honor the DOD request and fully evaluate the implications of 
privatization before we make drastic changes that hurt our military 
families. That is why everyone should support the Inhofe-Mikulski 
amendment. Our amendment is straightforward.
  It strikes bill language authorizing a pilot program privatizing 
commissaries. It is supported by 41 organizations--the American 
Logistics, the National Guard Association, the National Military Family 
Association.
  Privatizing commissaries is penny wise and pound foolish. If we care 
about the health of our troops, we must reject this.
  I have been to the commissaries in Maryland. Go to the one at Fort 
Meade. Fort Meade is a tremendous place. We might not deploy troops the 
way Fort Bragg or Camp LeJeune does, but what we do there is 
phenomenal. There are 58,000 people who work at Fort Meade. We are in 
the heart of Maryland, which has such a strong military presence, both 
Army and Navy. If you came to the commissary with me, you would see it 
as a nutritional settlement house. You would really like it because you 
see people there, first of all, of all ranks and ages mingling 
together. You might see a young woman who is married to an enlisted 
member of the military, and she is learning a lot about food and 
nutrition. She is getting advice, and she is getting direction, in 
addition to saving money. Also, if you go there, you would see 
oldtimers, who--although they are counting their pennies, they are 
counting their blessings that they have this commissary to be able to 
go to.
  When I say a settlement house, it is a gathering to learn about food, 
about nutrition, about a lot of things. It often offers healthier food 
at cheaper prices.
  When I talked with our garrison commander about something he and I 
worked on together called the Healthy Base Initiative, he said that 
what we were doing there was so phenomenal. We worked to bring in 
things like salad bars and some of the more modern kinds of things. 
This was just phenomenal.
  So, first, we need commissaries. Second, if we are looking at how to 
make the budget neutral, and I don't argue with that point, the DOD 
study itself says we need to explore two things: other ways of 
achieving budget neutrality--and they had some suggestions--and also 
explore with the private sector who would be interested in 
privatization whether it would result in cost savings without costing 
the benefits, meaning what is really sold there in nutrition. There are 
a lot of new and wonderful ideas. My father ran a small grocery store. 
He would be amazed at what grocery stores are now. But things like 
going to private labeling, better management--the DOD has some other 
toolkits to do before we go off on this approach to privatizing without 
analyzing. So I am for analyzing and then looking at the next step.
  The report this year just arrived. I know the authorizing committee 
didn't have the benefit of it. So I hope we will stick with Senator 
Inhofe and me, reject this amendment, look out for our troops, and 
let's explore other ways to achieve budget neutrality, but let's not 
just arbitrarily single out this earned benefit for cost savings.
  Mr. President, the chair of the Armed Services Committee looks like 
he is eager to speak, but I also want to say that I support the Durbin 
amendment we will be voting on later on this afternoon. I am a strong 
supporter of DOD's Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program. I 
was very concerned about the bill language. I understand the need for 
regulation but not strangulation. What is proposed in this bill would 
be so onerous, I am worried it would stop this research altogether. We 
can't let that happen, and Senator Durbin's amendment would ensure that 
this program is allowed to continue its lifesaving discoveries. This 
congressionally mandated research has done so much good in so many 
areas, and we have large numbers of groups--from the Breast Cancer 
Coalition to the disabled veterans themselves--who support the Durbin 
amendment.
  I have been supporting this program for more than 25 years. It all 
started in 1992 when the breast cancer community was looking to create 
a new research program. And by the way, the breast cancer advocates 
were just as organized, mobilized, and galvanized back then as they are 
today. The advocates knew that DOD ran the largest health system in the 
country and envisioned a new research program that was peer-reviewed 
and included input from not just scientists but also advocates. This 
was a new concept at the time that the needs of a community affected by 
disease would be considered when determining research priorities.
  So we started with breast cancer in 1992 and quickly expanded to look 
at other illnesses and conditions. Since 1992, Congress has provided 
more than $11.7 billion to fund more than 13,000 research grants. Today 
DOD's medical research program studies prostate cancer, ALS, traumatic 
brain injury, multiple sclerosis, lung cancer, ovarian cancer, autism, 
amputation research, and many others. And I am so proud that research 
is conducted at Fort Detrick in Maryland, Johns Hopkins, and the 
University of Maryland.
  Almost immediately, Congress's investment in DOD's medical research 
program paid off--and with dividends. Breast cancer research led to the 
development of Herceptin, a standard care for the treatment of breast 
cancer. Lung cancer research led to creation of the first lung cancer 
bio-specimen repository with clinical and outcome data available to all 
researchers studying lung cancer. Traumatic brain injury research led 
to the development of two FDA-cleared devices to screen for and 
identify TBI in military members. Amputee care research led to the 
development of amputee trauma trainer, a device which replicates blast 
injuries from IEDs in war zones. It trains physicians to better respond 
to war injuries. Some of the DOD's regenerative medical breakthroughs 
are so astonishing you would think you were reading science fiction. 
The Department's medical program supported the first ever double hand 
transplantation on a combat-wounded warrior. Wow--so proud that this 
ground-breaking procedure was developed and performed at Johns Hopkins. 
This is just a snapshot. The list of successes are as long as they are 
inspiring.
  For years, opponents of DOD's medical research program have argued 
against this program. They say, ``Oh, this research is duplicative. Oh, 
this research should only benefit active military.'' Well, I say ``no'' 
to both arguments.
  First, DOD's research is complementary to NIH's research but is not 
duplicative or redundant. In fact, the Department's research grants are 
peer-reviewed by doctors, scientists, advocates, and Federal agencies 
to ensure there is not duplication in efforts. The Institute of 
Medicine has reviewed DOD's program and found it to be efficient and 
effective.
  Second, we know the diseases studied by DOD affect both active 
military and their families. Imagine if we refused to allow DOD to 
study breast cancer in 1992 simply because there were fewer woman 
serving? We wouldn't have the advances that we do today saving lives 
and improving lives. Taking care of military families is an essential 
part of our promise to our men and women in uniform.
  We have an opportunity to block this misguided language in the 
underlying bill that would have terrible consequences for medical 
research. The discoveries and treatments speak for themselves. I urge 
my colleagues to support Senator Durbin's amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 4204

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we will probably discuss this some more--
this issue of the privatization--later on before we actually vote on 
the amendment, but this is a classic example of a distortion of an 
issue which could save the taxpayers $1 billion that we subsidize the 
commissary system. It is not privatizing, I say to the Senator from 
Maryland; it is a pilot program of five--count them, five--military 
bases. There are companies and providers of food and services that are 
ready to try to establish on bases. We are not taking away a single 
commissary. We are not closing a single one--not one. But what we are 
trying to do is--if you want to have a hamburger at Burger

[[Page S3494]]

King or McDonald's or Dunkin' Donuts or use UPS, you can go on a 
military base and they will provide you that service. The government 
doesn't do it. They don't make hamburgers. They don't carry mail. All 
of a sudden, now we have to have more studies. The real study would be 
a pilot program which proves successful.
  By the way, if you ask the men and women who are in the military 
``Would you like to shop at Walmart or Safeway or one of these others 
if it is convenient?'' do you know what the answer is? ``Of course. 
Yes.'' Because there is more variety and there are lower prices.
  Does my colleague, the Senator from Maryland, know that we are 
spending over $1 billion of taxpayer money on these commissaries every 
year, when we could probably do it for nothing or even charge these 
groups or commercial enterprises that would like to come, in a pilot 
program, to a military base? This is crazy. Fort Belvoir Commissary 
right here, the highest grossing store in the system, loses 10 cents on 
every dollar of goods it produces and sells, and guess who covers those 
losses. The taxpayers of America.
  It is not an attempt to take away the commissary benefits; it is an 
attempt to see if the men and women in the military and all their 
dependents around the bases might get a better product at a lower 
price. That is what five--count them, five--privatizations are 
attempting to try.
  Yesterday, we received the Department of Defense report on its plan 
to modernize the commissary and exchange systems. In that report, DOD 
stated that private sector entities are ``willing to engage in a pilot 
program.'' DOD has told us that at least three major private sector 
entities are interested in testing commissary privatization. This has 
led DOD to publish a request for information to industry to give 
feedback on how a privatization pilot program could work. So why would 
my colleague support an amendment that would delay what needs to be 
done?
  This is really all about an outfit called the grocery brokers. That 
industry has been working overtime to stop this pilot program because 
if it is successful, privatization would destroy their successful 
business model because they wouldn't have to use the grocery brokers. 
That is what this is all about, my friends.
  So rather than paying over $1 billion a year to be in the grocery 
business, privatization might provide--I am not saying it will, but it 
might provide the Department of Defense with an alternative method of 
giving the men and women in the military and our retirees high-quality 
grocery products, higher levels of customer satisfaction, and discount 
savings, while reducing the financial burden on taxpayers. We need to 
have a pilot program for sure.
  Five pilot programs is not the end of civilization as we know it. It 
is not a burden on the men and women who are serving. I have talked to 
hundreds of men and women who are serving. I said ``How would you like 
to have Safeway on the base? How would you like to have Walmart?'' and 
they said ``Gee, I would really like that'' because they get a wider 
and diverse selection from which to choose--not to mention, although it 
doesn't seem to matter around here, it might save $1 billion for the 
taxpayers. But what is $1 billion? We are going to spend a couple 
billion dollars just on medical research--which the Senator from 
Maryland obviously is in favor of--calling it in the name of defense, 
when it absolutely should be funded by other branches of the 
Appropriations Committee, rather than the Willie Sutton syndrome and 
taking it out of defense.
  All I can say to the Senator from Maryland is that all we are talking 
about is giving it a try in five places. Let's not go to general 
quarters about an attempt to see if we can save the taxpayers $1 
billion a year. We are not going to close any commissaries in any 
remote bases. We are not doing anything but a five-base pilot 
program. That is all there is to this amendment, and to portray it as 
anything else is a distortion of exactly what the legislation has 
clearly stated its intent to be.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, despite what was just said, I am not in 
the pocket of something called grocery brokers. I am not here showing 
for something called grocery brokers. I am here to stand up for 
military and military families. I want the record to show that. I don't 
even know what grocery brokers are. I know what a grocery store is 
because my father ran one, I worked in one and learned a lot from the 
kind of values my father ran his business on.
  Let's talk about the DOD-mandated report that we did last year when 
we discussed this. The report acknowledges that privatization would not 
be able to replicate the range of benefits, the level of savings, and 
the geographic reach provided by the commissaries while achieving 
budget neutrality. DOD is continuing its due diligence on 
privatization. It is still assessing the privatization of all or 
portions of the commissary system.
  What I worry about is cherry-picking. ``Oh, we are going to 
privatize.'' They are going to do it in the lucrative markets, in the 
Baltimore-Washington corridor, but right now our commissaries, owned by 
the United States of America for the troops defending the United States 
of America, are required to operate where the servicemembers are, even 
when it would not be economically beneficial from a commercial 
standpoint. Go ahead with this privatization myth, fantasy, or delusion 
that they are not going to cherry-pick.
  More than two-thirds of the commissaries serve military populations 
living in locations that are not profitable for private sector grocers. 
These commissaries are made possible by the appropriated funds subsidy 
and by operating efficiencies and volumes of the large statewide 
stores. It is not only taxpayers they are subsidizing. Over 40 percent 
of commissaries' appropriated budget provide commissary services 
overseas and in remote locations. Do you think they are going to be 
part of privatization? They are going take what they want, where they 
can make money, and then these others are going to be defunded because, 
yes, you might talk about what the taxpayers subsidize, but at large, 
more profitable commissaries are also a cross-subsidy to those that are 
in the more remote areas or overseas.
  Commissaries provide a benefit to servicemembers in the form of 
savings, proximity, and consistency that in some ways the commercial 
grocery sector, which must operate for profit, might find difficult to 
sustain.
  Business is business. We know how the defense contractor game works. 
We know how the contractors are. They go where they can make money. 
That doesn't necessarily mean they go where they serve the Nation. I 
have great respect for our defense contractors. Many of them are either 
headquartered in Maryland or serve Maryland, but let's face it, their 
business is to make money, not necessarily to serve the troops. If they 
can make money serving the troops, they will make money and want to 
have stores where they can make money. That doesn't deal with the 
remote area. Let's hear it from our Alaskan people, let's hear it from 
the overseas people, and so on.
  All I am saying is, while we continue on the path to explore either 
complete budget neutrality or to achieve budget neutrality, the 
Department of Defense says it needs more analysis on what it can do 
with itself and what the private sector is talking about.
  There are three major private sector companies that have expressed 
interest. I would want to know, are they going to cherry-pick or are 
they going to be like Little Jack Horner waiting to get their hands on 
a plum? I am for the whole fruit stand, and I want it at the 
commissaries.
  This has been a good exchange, and I respect my colleague from 
Arizona in the way he has stood up for defense. I know he wants to 
serve the troops as well. So let's see where the votes go, and we look 
forward to advancing the cause of the national security for our Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland. I 
always enjoy spirited discussion with her. She is a wonderful public 
servant, and I am going to miss her in this institution because she has 
an honorable record of outstanding service, and I always enjoy doing 
combat.

[[Page S3495]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.


                                Hear Act

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, earlier today, the Senate Judiciary 
Subcommittee on the Constitution convened a hearing on a piece of 
legislation I introduced with several of my colleagues called the 
Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act, or the HEAR Act. This bill is 
long overdue, and like most pieces of good legislation, it is pretty 
straightforward.
  During the Holocaust, Nazis regularly confiscated private property, 
including artwork, adding one more offense to their devastating reign. 
Today, the day after the anniversary of D-day and decades after World 
War II ended, there are still families who haven't been able to get 
their stolen artwork or family heirlooms back.
  The HEAR Act will support these victims by giving them a chance to 
have their claims decided on the merits in a court of law and hopefully 
facilitate the return of artwork stolen by Nazis to their rightful 
owners. That is why we called the hearing ``Reuniting Victims with 
Their Lost Heritage.'' It is true that Hitler's final solution in World 
War II was not just the extermination of the Jewish people but erasing 
their culture. This was part of the overall plan in Hitler's final 
solution. This legislation will help those who had vital pieces of 
their family and cultural heritage stolen to find justice.
  This legislation is also consistent with our country's diplomatic 
efforts and longstanding congressional policy. I am grateful to my 
colleague from Texas, Senator Cruz, as well as the senior Senator from 
New York, Mr. Schumer, and Connecticut, Senator Blumenthal, for joining 
me in introducing this bipartisan piece of legislation. I hope the 
Senate Judiciary Committee will mark this up soon and the full Chamber 
will consider it soon.
  Mr. President, separately, as we continue our work on the Defense 
authorization bill, I want to talk for a moment about how important 
that is. Yesterday I spent some time talking about the threats not only 
to our troops overseas who are in harm's way but threats that those of 
us here at home are experiencing as a result of a more diversified 
array of threats than we have ever seen in the last 50 years. I say 
``50 years'' because the Director of National Intelligence, James 
Clapper, has served in the intelligence community for 50 years, and 
that is what he said--we have a more diverse array of threats today 
than he has seen in his whole 50-year career. That includes here at 
home because it is not just people traveling from the Middle East to 
the United States or people coming from the United States over to the 
Middle East training and then coming back. It is also about homegrown 
terrorists--people who are inspired by the use of social media and 
instructed to take up arms where they are and kill innocent people in 
the United States and, unfortunately, as we have seen in Europe as 
well.
  As we think about the legacy of this President and his administration 
when it comes to foreign policy, I am reminded of the comments by 
former President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, commenting on another 
Democratic President's foreign policy. When he was asked, he candidly 
admitted and said: I can't think of a single place in the world where 
the United States is better off or held in higher esteem than it was 
before this administration. He called the impact of President Obama's 
foreign policy minimal. I would suggest that is awfully generous, if 
you look around the world, the threats of a nuclear-armed North Korea, 
which has intercontinental ballistic missiles it has tested in creating 
an unstable environment there with our ally and friend to the south, 
South Korea, if you look at what is happening in Europe as the newly 
emboldened Putin has invaded Crimea and Ukraine with very little 
consequences associated with it. I have said it before and I will say 
it again, weakness is a provocation. Weakness is a provocation to the 
world's bullies, thugs, and tyrants, and that is what we see in spades.
  In the Middle East, President Obama talked about a red line in Syria 
when chemical weapons were used, but then when Bashar al-Assad saw that 
there was no real followthrough on that, it was a hollow threat and 
indeed he just kept coming, barrel-bombing innocent civilians in a 
civil war which has now taken perhaps 400,000 lives. Then, we have seen 
it in the South China Sea, where China, newly emboldened, is literally 
building islands in the middle of the South China Sea--one of the most 
important sealanes to international commerce and trade in Asia.
  I will quote on North Korea again. Former Secretary of Defense Leon 
Panetta said: ``We're within an inch of war almost every day in that 
part of the world,'' talking about Asia, with the threat of China in 
the South China Sea, North Korea. As far as North Korean aggression is 
concerned, this administration has basically done nothing to counter 
that aggression.
  Under the President's watch, this regime has grown even more hostile 
and more dangerous because it is so unstable. In fact, when she was 
Secretary of State, Secretary Clinton testified in her confirmation 
hearing that her goal was ``to end the North Korean nuclear program.'' 
That is what Secretary Clinton said. Her goal was to end the North 
Korean nuclear program. She even promised to embark upon a very 
aggressive effort to that effect.
  We know what happened. Instead, she adopted what was later 
euphemistically called strategic patience. That is just another way of 
saying doing nothing. In other words, this more laid-back approach is 
simply lost on tyrants like we see in North Korea, and it certainly 
didn't punish the North Korean leadership for its hostilities.
  We can't continue down the reckless path of ignoring challenges 
around the world or retreating where people are looking for American 
leadership. That is why it is so critical that we demonstrate our 
commitment to our men and women in uniform by passing this important 
Defense authorization bill this week.
  We have an all-volunteer military, and that is a good thing. We have 
many patriots who join the military, train, and then are deployed all 
around the world, as directed by the Commander in Chief, but the idea 
that we would not follow through on our commitment to make sure they 
have the resources they need is simply unthinkable.
  I hope we will continue to make progress on the Defense authorization 
bill and make sure we provide the resources, equipment, and 
authorization they need in order to defend our country. Let's get the 
NDAA, the Defense authorization bill, done this week.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.


                                 Syria

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, while we are waiting for others to speak 
on the floor, I think it is important to take a moment to talk about 
the lead editorial in this morning's Washington Post, which describes 
the events transpiring in Syria, as we speak. The lead editorial says:

       Empty words, empty stomachs. Syrian children continue to 
     face starvation as another Obama administration promise falls 
     by the wayside.

  This is a devastating and true story.

       It's been nearly six months since the U.N. Security Council 
     passed a resolution demanding an end to the bombing and 
     shelling of civilian areas in Syria and calling for immediate 
     humanitarian access to besieged areas. It's been four months 
     since Secretary of State John F. Kerry described the sieges 
     as a ``catastrophe'' of a dimension unseen since World War II 
     and said that ``all parties of the conflict have a duty to 
     facilitate humanitarian access to Syrians in desperate 
     need.''

  Those were the words of Secretary of State John Kerry back in 
February.
  The editorial continues:

       By Monday, there still had been no food deliveries to 
     Darayya in the Damascus suburbs, the al-Waer district of Homs 
     or several of the other 19 besieged areas, with a population 
     of more than 500,000, identified by the United Nations. Nor 
     had there been airdrops. None have been organized, and U.N. 
     officials say none are likely in the coming days. Another 
     deadline has been blown, another red line crossed--and 
     children in the besieged towns are still starving.

  This is heartbreaking. It is heartbreaking. It is heartbreaking. 
Children in besieged towns are still starving.

[[Page S3496]]

  The editorial continues:

       Over the weekend, Russian and Syrian planes--

  Our allies, the Russians--

     heavily bombed civilian areas in rebel-held areas of Aleppo 
     and Idlib. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said 500 
     civilians, including 105 children, had been killed in 45 
     consecutive days of bombing in Aleppo. The ``cessation of 
     hostilities'' negotiated by Mr. Kerry in February, which was 
     never fully observed by Russia and Syria, has been shredded.
       And the Obama administration's response? It is still 
     waiting patiently for the regime of Bashar al-Assad to stop 
     dropping barrel bombs from helicopters on hospitals and allow 
     passage to aid convoys. It is still asking politely for 
     Russia to stop bombing Western-backed rebel units and to 
     compel the Assad regime to follow suit. ``We expect the 
     regime to live up to its commitments,'' said a State 
     Department statement Monday. ``We ask Russia to use its 
     influence to end this inhumane policy.'' As for airdrops, 
     ``that's a very complex question,'' said a spokeswoman.
       The promise of air delivery, it turns out, was entirely 
     rhetorical. On May 26, two senior U.N. officials publicly 
     warned that a U.N. air bridge could not be established 
     without permission from the Assad regime--the same regime 
     that was blocking food deliveries by land. They called on the 
     United States and Russia to ``find a way'' to begin the 
     operation. But neither the United States nor Britain, the 
     original proponent of the airdrops, acted to make an 
     operation possible. Instead, they issued appeals to the 
     Russian government--the same government that is 
     systematically bombing civilian neighborhoods of Aleppo and 
     Idlib.
       The British ambassador to the United Nations hinted on 
     Friday that if the Assad regime kept preventing land and air 
     raid deliveries, his government ``will consider other 
     actions.'' The French ambassador to the United Nations said 
     ``the Syrian regime is continuing to systematically starve 
     hundreds of thousands of civilians. These are war crimes . . 
     . There is a strong momentum here in the Security Council . . 
     . to say `enough is enough.' ''
       Strong words. Those are a Kerry specialty, too. People in 
     the besieged towns are ``eating leaves and grass or animals 
     of one kind or another that they can manage to capture,'' Mr. 
     Kerry declared. Humanitarian access, he said, ``has to happen 
     not a week from now . . . it ought to happen in the first 
     days.'' That was on February 2.

  On February 2, the Secretary of State declared humanitarian access 
where 500,000 people were starving. On February 2, he said that the 
humanitarian access ``has to happen not a week from now . . . it ought 
to happen in the first days.'' It is shocking and disgraceful. We 
should all be ashamed. By the way, the people who we are training to 
fight against ISIS are prohibited from fighting against the guy who is 
barrel-bombing and killing these thousands of men, women, and 
children--Bashar al-Assad. It is insanity. History will judge this 
administration and its actions not only with anger but with 
embarrassment. This is a shameful chapter in American history.
  I note the presence of the Senator from Illinois.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, is there an order of business that has 
been agreed to by unanimous consent?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time until 4 p.m. is equally divided.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I find it hard to understand why anyone 
would want to eliminate funding for militarily relevant defense medical 
research--research that offers families hope and improves and saves 
lives--especially now. When you look at the body of medical research 
across all Federal agencies, we are getting closer to finding cures for 
certain cancers, closer than ever to understanding how to delay the 
onset of neurological diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, closer 
than ever to developing a universal flu vaccine. Now is the time to be 
ramping up our investment in medical research, not scaling it back. 
Yet, there are two provisions in this Defense authorization bill that 
would effectively end the Department of Defense medical research 
program. These two provisions are dangerous. They cut medical research 
funding, which will cost lives--military lives and civilian lives. That 
is why I filed a bipartisan amendment, together with Senator Cochran, 
the Republican chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which 
will be considered by the Senate this afternoon.
  My legislation would remove Chairman McCain's provisions so that 
lifesaving research at the Department of Defense can continue. Senator 
McCain's two provisions, found in sections 756 and 898, work hand in 
hand to end the Department of Defense medical research program.
  His first provision requires the Secretary of Defense to certify that 
each medical research grant is ``designed to directly promote, enhance, 
and restore the health and safety of members of the Armed Forces''--not 
veterans, not retirees, not spouses of military members, and not 
children of military families. In my view, they are all part of our 
national defense, and they should all be covered by the DOD health care 
system and research.
  Senator McCain's second provision, section 898, would require that 
medical research grant applicants meet the same accounting and pricing 
standards that the Department requires for procuring contracts. This is 
a dramatic change in the law. It is the imposition of miles of redtape 
on every medical research grant. The regulations that he has subjected 
them to apply to private companies that sell the Department of Defense 
goods and services, such as weapon systems and equipment. Among other 
things, it would require the Defense Contract Audit Agency, or DCAA, to 
conduct at least one, and probably several, audits on each grant 
recipient. Do you know what that means? It means there will be 2,433 
more audits each year by the Defense Contract Audit Agency. How are 
they doing with their current workload? They are behind on $43 billion 
worth of goods and services that is being procured by the Department of 
Defense, and Senator McCain would send them at least 2,433 more audits 
next year.
  Taxpayers deserve to know that their money is well spent. The 
existing system does just that. A grant application now is carefully 
scrutinized, and throughout the 24-year history of this Defense 
research program, there have only been a handful of instances where 
serious questions have risen. No grant makes it through this process 
without first showing clear military relevance. If an applicant fails 
that test, it is over. If they clear it, they will be subject to a host 
of criticism and scrutiny by researchers, and then representatives from 
the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Veterans 
Affairs sit down and measure each grant against existing research. 
These rules are in place to protect taxpayers' dollars, and they do. 
Senator McCain is now seeking to add miles of redtape to a program in 
the name of protecting it. His provisions go too far.
  The Coalition for National Security Research, which represents a 
broad coalition of research universities and institutes, wrote: ``These 
sections''--referring to Chairman McCain's sections--``will likely 
place another administrative burden on the DOD scientific research 
enterprise and slow the pace of medical innovation.''
  When we asked the Department of Defense to give us their analysis of 
Chairman McCain's provisions, they concluded--after looking at all of 
the redtape created by Senator McCain--that these issues would lead to 
the failure of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program. 
That is clear and concise, and, sadly, it is accurate.
  What Senator McCain has proposed as a new administrative bureaucratic 
burden on medical research at the Department of Defense is not fiscally 
responsible, it doesn't protect taxpayers, and it is not in pursuit of 
small government by any means. These provisions are simply roadblocks.
  Let's talk for a minute about the medical research funded by the 
Department of Defense. Since fiscal year 1992, this program has 
invested $11.7 billion in innovative research. The U.S. Army Medical 
Research and Materiel Command determines the appropriate research 
strategy. They looked for research gaps, and they want to fund high-
risk, high-impact research that other agencies and private investors 
may be unwilling to fund.
  In 2004, the Institute of Medicine, an independent organization 
providing objective analysis of complex health issues, looked at the 
DOD medical research program, and they found that this program ``has 
shown that it has been an efficiently managed and scientifically 
productive effort.'' The Institute of Medicine went on to say that this 
program ``concentrates its resources on research mechanisms that 
complement rather than duplicate the

[[Page S3497]]

research approaches of the major funders of medical research in the 
United States, such as industry and the National Institutes of 
Health.'' This has been a dramatically successful program.
  I would like to point to a couple of things that need to be noted in 
the Record when it comes to the success of this program. This morning 
Senator McCain raised a question about funding programs that relate to 
epilepsy and seizures when it comes to the Department of Defense 
medical research program. In a recent video produced by the Citizens 
United for Research in Epilepsy, they share heartbreaking stories of 
veterans suffering from post-traumatic epilepsy and the recovery 
challenges they face. They shared the story of retired LCpl Scott 
Kruchten. His team of five marines, during a routine patrol, drove over 
an IED. He was the only survivor. He suffered severe brain injury. 
Lance Corporal Kruchten suffered a seizure inside the helicopter while 
they were transporting him to Baghdad for surgery. He has been on 
medication ever since. In fact, seizures set back all of the other 
rehabilitation programs that injured veterans participate in and 
greatly slow their recovery.
  Since the year 2000, over 300,000 Active-Duty military servicemembers 
have experienced an incident of traumatic brain injury. Many of them 
are at risk of developing epilepsy. Post-traumatic epilepsy comprises 
about 20 percent of all symptomatic epilepsy. According to the American 
Epilepsy Society, over 50 percent of traumatic brain injury victims 
with penetrating head injury from Korea and Vietnam developed post-
traumatic epilepsy. The research we are talking about is relevant to 
the military. It is relevant to hundreds of thousands who have faced 
traumatic brain injury. I don't know why Chairman McCain pointed that 
out this morning as an example of research that is unnecessary to the 
Department of Defense. It is clearly necessary for the men and women 
who serve our country.

  Let me say a word about breast cancer too. In 2009, after serving the 
Air Force for over 25 years, SMSgt Sheila Johnson Glover was diagnosed 
with advanced stage IV breast cancer which had spread to her liver and 
ribs. She said breast cancer cut her military career short. She was 
treated with Herceptin, a drug developed with early support from the 
Department of Defense medical research funding. According to Sheila, 
``It is a full circle with me, giving 25 years of service in the DOD 
and the Department of Defense giving me back my life as a breast cancer 
patient.''
  Sheila is not alone; 1 out of every 8 women is at risk of developing 
breast cancer in her lifetime and 175,000 women are expected to be 
diagnosed with the disease each year. With more than 1.4 million 
Active-Duty females and female spouses under the Federal military 
health system, breast cancer research is directly related to our 
military and our military community.
  Breast cancer research started this medical research program in the 
Department of Defense. It was given a mere $46 million at the start. 
Over the span of the life of medical research programs at the 
Department of Defense, a little over $11 billion has been spent. Almost 
one-third of it has gone to breast cancer research, and they have come 
up with dramatic, positive results, such as the development of this 
drug Herceptin.
  The point I am getting to is this. If you believe the military 
consists of more than just the man or woman in a uniform but consists 
of their families and those who have served and who are now veterans, 
if you believe their medical outcomes are critically important to the 
future of our military, then you can understand why medical research 
programs such as this one, which would be virtually eliminated by 
Chairman McCain's language, is so important for the future strength of 
our men and women in uniform and the people who support them.
  Let me tell you about a constituent who wrote me last month. This 
photo shows Linda and Al Hallgren. Al is a U.S. veteran, survivor of 
bladder cancer. Linda wrote to me and said:

       When my husband was originally diagnosed in 2013, our only 
     options were bladder removal followed by chemotherapy. 
     Prognosis based on his cancer was months to a year or so. 
     There were so many questions that came to mind, primarily 
     around, ``How did I get this?''

  But as she pointed out to me, Al is a fighter, a survivor. Two years 
later, here they are, the two of them, enjoying a ride on a motorcycle.
  When she passed along this photo, here is what she said: ``We 
continue to fight the battle and take moments out to enjoy life to the 
fullest one day at a time.''
  She noted in her letter that there are many risks with bladder cancer 
associated with military service. Smoking is the leading cause. The 
incidence of smoking among our military members is entirely too high.
  The Institute of Medicine also took a look at the use of Agent Blue 
from 1961 to 1971 in the Vietnam war and its linkage to bladder cancer. 
It is the fourth most commonly diagnosed cancer among veterans but only 
the 27th highest recipient of Federal research. So the story of this 
family and what they have been through raises an important question. Do 
we have an obligation to this individual who served our country, served 
it honorably, came home and suffered a serious medical illness? Do we 
have an obligation, through medical research, to try to find ways to 
make his life better, to make sure we spare him the pain that is 
associated with many of the things that are linked to his service in 
our military? Of course, we do. So why do we go along with this 
language that the chairman put in his authorization bill to eliminate 
these medical research programs?
  I mentioned earlier the advancements that were made in breast cancer 
research. In 1993, the Department of Defense awarded Dr. Dennis Slamon 
two grants totaling $1.7 million for a tumor tissue bank to study 
breast cancer. He began his work several years earlier with funding 
from the National Cancer Institute, but researchers still lacked the 
regular source of breast tissue from women. That is when the DOD 
funding made a difference. Dr. Slamon's DOD-funded work helped to 
develop Herceptin, which I mentioned earlier.
  At lunch just a few minutes ago, we heard from Senator Barbara 
Mikulski. She told about the lonely battle which she fought for years 
for women to get medical research. Sadly, the National Institutes of 
Health and other places were doing research only on men. Thank goodness 
Senator Mikulski and others spoke up. They spoke up and NIH started 
changing its protocols. Then they went to the Department of Defense and 
said: We want you to focus on breast cancer, if you will, for the 
emerging role of women in our military, and they did with dramatic 
results. Now comes a suggestion from Chairman McCain that we are to put 
an end to this research. We should burden it with more redtape. I don't 
think it makes sense. It certainly doesn't make sense for the men and 
women serving in the military and the spouses of the men who serve in 
the military who certainly understand the importance of this research.
  DOD-funded research developed a neurocognitive test for diagnosing 
Parkinson's disease. The Department of Defense research also identified 
additional genetic risk factors for developing the disease, including 
two rare variants that we now know connect the risk for Parkinson's 
with traumatic injury to the head. What we find when we look at the 
list of research, such as Parkinson's disease, and question why that 
has any application to the military, it is that they knew there was an 
application, they knew there was a connection, and it was worth 
seeking.
  Here is the bottom line. People have lived longer and more productive 
lives because of DOD-funded medical research, and we have an 
opportunity to help even more people if my amendment passes and we 
defeat the language that is in this Defense authorization bill.
  Sixty-three Senators from 41 States, both sides of the aisle, 
requested increases in medical research for our next fiscal year. We 
can't earmark where that research is going to take place--that goes 
through a professional process--but you can certainly point out to the 
Department of Defense areas where they might have some interest, and 
they make the final decision.
  If the McCain provisions become law, they put an end to research 
programs requested by a supermajority of the Senate.

[[Page S3498]]

  Mr. President, how much time have I used and how much time currently 
remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). There is 22\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DURBIN. I will yield the floor at this point to see if others are 
seeking recognition.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, how much time is remaining for our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 30 minutes remaining for the 
majority.
  Mr. GRAHAM. If it is OK with the Senator, I will make a few comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. No. 1, when it comes to Senator Durbin, there is no 
stronger voice for medical research in the Senate and he should be 
proud of that.
  Senator Durbin and I are cochairing the NIH caucus, the National 
Institutes of Health, to make sure we take the crown jewel of our 
research at the Federal level and adequately fund it, to try to make it 
more robust, and in times of budget cuts, sequestration across the 
board, I want to compliment Senator Blunt and Senator Durbin and others 
for trying to find a way to increase NIH funding. I think we will be 
successful, and a lot of credit will go to Senator Durbin.
  As to the military budget, we are on course to have the smallest Army 
since 1940. We are on course to have the smallest Navy since 1915 and 
the smallest Air Force in modern times. Modernization programs are very 
much stuck in neutral. The wars continue, and they are expanding. By 
2021, if we go back into a sequestration mode, we will be spending half 
of normally what we spend on defense in terms of GDP.
  So to those who want to reform the military, count me in. This will 
be one of the most reform-minded packages in the history of the 
Department of Defense. We are trying to address the top-heavy nature of 
the military, where general officer billets have exploded, and make 
sure we have a leaner military at the top and put our emphasis on those 
out in the field fighting the war.
  We are dealing with the explosion of contractors. We are looking at 
our medical delivery systems anew. It has all been bipartisan. Senator 
Reed deserves a lot of credit with his Democratic colleagues to find 
ways to reform the military, not only to save money but to improve the 
quality of life of those in the military.
  There is an obligation on all of us who are considered defense hawks 
to make sure the military works more efficiently. This bill drives 
contracting away from cost-plus to fixed price. We see a lot of 
overruns in terms of big-ticket items--billions of dollars over what 
was projected in terms of costs of the F-35 and aircraft carriers. One 
of the ways to change that problem is to have the contractor have skin 
in the game by having a fixed price rather than cost-plus contracting.
  I want to compliment Senators McCain and Reed for looking at the way 
the military is being run and trying to make it more efficient, 
understanding that reform is necessary.
  Having said that, 50 percent of the military's budget, for the most 
part, goes into personnel, and I believe we need more people in the 
Army, not less. So we can reform the military to save money, and we 
should. We can bring better business practices to the table, and we 
should. We can modernize the way we deliver health care to get outcomes 
rather than just spending money, and we should. We can look at every 
part of the military and put it under a microscope and make it more 
efficient and make sure it is serving the defense needs of the country.
  Having said that, given the number of ships we are headed toward, 
278--420,000 people in the Army--we need more people to defend this 
Nation, and we have an obligation to the people defending the Nation to 
give them the best equipment and take care of their families. I am not 
looking for a fair fight. I want to rebuild the military and make sure 
our military has the weapons systems that would deter war, and if you 
had to go to war, to win it as quickly as possible.
  That gets us to medical research. There is about $1 billion spent on 
medical research within the Department of Defense. What we are 
suggesting is that we look at this account anew. What the committee has 
decided to do--Senator McCain--is to say the Secretary of Defense has 
to certify that the money in the medical research budget in the 
Department of Defense is actually related to the defense world. There 
are a lot of good things being done in the Department of Defense in 
terms of medical research, but the question for us is, in that $1 
billion, how much of it actually applies to the military itself because 
every dollar we spend out of DOD's budget for things not related to 
defense hurts our ability to defend the Nation.
  It is not a slam on the things they are doing. I am sure they are all 
worthwhile. The question is, Should that be done somewhere else and 
should it come out of a different pot of money?
  So the two measures we are proposing--to continue medical research in 
the future, the Secretary of Defense would have to certify that the 
medical research program in question is related to the Department of 
Defense's needs, and there is a pretty broad application of what 
``need'' is--traumatic brain injury and all kinds of issues related to 
veterans. Of the $1 billion, using the criteria I have just suggested 
where there is a certification, some of the money will stay in the 
Department of Defense, but some of it will not because if we look at 
that $1 billion, a lot of it is not connected to what we do to defend 
the Nation.
  The second requirement is that if they are going to get research 
dollars, they have to go through the same process as any other 
contractor to get money from the Department of Defense. That means they 
are in the same boat as anybody else who deals with the Department of 
Defense. If that is a redtape burden, then everybody who deals with the 
Department of Defense will share that burden. So rather than just 
writing a check to somebody, there is a process to apply for the money 
and the contracting rules will apply. These are the two changes--a 
certification that the money being spent on medical research benefits 
the military, the Department of Defense, and in order to get that money 
one has to go through the normal contracting procedures to make sure 
there is competition and all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed. I 
think that makes sense.
  I think some of the money we are spending under the guise of military 
Department of Defense research has nothing to do with the Department of 
Defense, and we need every dollar we can find to defend the Nation. 
Many of these programs are very worthwhile, I am sure, and I would be 
willing to continue them somewhere else. I am supporting a dramatic 
increase in NIH funding. I am very much for research, but if we are 
going to bring about change in Washington, and if people like me who 
want a stronger military are going to advocate for a bigger military, I 
think we have an obligation to have a smarter, more reformed system.
  I am not trying to have it both ways. I am looking at how the 
Pentagon works at every level, along with Senator McCain, and we are 
bringing structural changes that are long overdue.
  I want to compliment Senator Reed, who has been a great partner to 
Senator McCain. We don't always agree, but I think Senator Reed has 
bought into the idea that the Pentagon is not immune from being 
reformed and the status quo has to change.
  So with all due respect to Senator Durbin, I think the provisions 
Senator McCain has crafted make sense to me. To get research dollars in 
the future, the Secretary of Defense has to certify that the money in 
question helps the Department of Defense, and if one is going to bid 
for the business, they must go through the normal contracting process 
to make sure it is done right. Those are the only two changes.
  Those programs that will be knocked out of the Department of Defense, 
I am certainly willing to keep them funded somewhere else. I think that 
is a long-overdue reform.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to respond to my friend from 
South Carolina. We are friends. We have worked on a lot of things 
together. I hope we will continue to do so in the future. We clearly 
see this issue differently today.

[[Page S3499]]

  Two-tenths of 1 percent of the Department of Defense appropriations 
will go for medical research--about $1 billion in a budget of $524 
billion. It is not an outrageous amount. We are not funding medical 
research at the expense of being able to defend America. Hardly anyone 
would argue that, but a small percentage would. I can make an 
argument--and I have tried effectively here--that when it comes to the 
medical research that is being done through the Department of Defense, 
it is extraordinary.
  We have achieved so much for a minimal investment in so many 
different areas. I could go through the list--and I will--of those 
areas of research that have made such a big difference. I also want to 
say that there are 149 universities, veterans organizations, and 
medical advocacy groups that support the amendment that I offered 
today. The reason they support it is that what has been suggested--that 
this is not just another procedural requirement being placed in front 
of these institutions that want to do medical research--really 
understates the impact it will have.
  The Department of Defense itself, after analyzing the McCain language 
that comes to us on this bill, said it will create a burden, a delay, 
additional overhead costs. The one thing we have not heard from 
Chairman McCain or anyone on his side of the issue is what is the 
reason for this? Why are we changing a process that has been used for 
24 years? Has there been evidence of scandal, of waste, of abuse?
  Out of the thousands and thousands of research grants that have been 
given, only a handful have raised questions, and very few of those go 
to the integrity of the process. It has been a question about the 
medical procedure that was used. If we are going to impose new 
bureaucracies, new redtape, new requirements, new audits, why are we 
doing it? If there is a need for it, I will stand up with everyone here 
and protect the taxpayers' dollars. But that is not really what is at 
stake here.
  This morning on the floor, Chairman McCain made it clear. He just 
does not want medical research at the Department of Defense. He wants 
it limited strictly to certain areas and not to be expanded to include 
the families of those serving in our military--our veterans--through 
the Department of Defense. That is his position. He can hold that 
position. I certainly disagree with it.
  If we take an honest look at this, what we have done in creating this 
new bureaucracy and redtape is simply slow down the process and make it 
more expensive. For one thing, each one of these universities and each 
one of these organizations has to go through an annual audit--at least 
one. The agency within the Department of Defense responsible for those 
audits is currently overwhelmed, before this new McCain requirement 
comes in for even more audits.
  So it means the process slows down. Research does not take place in a 
matter of months; it might be years. Do you want to wait for years in 
some of these instances? I don't. I want timely research to come up 
with answers to questions that can spare people suffering and spare 
expense to the families as well as to the Department of Defense. When I 
go through the long list of things that have been done through these 
defense research programs, it is amazing how many times they have 
stepped up and made a serious difference.
  Let me give you one other illustration. The incidence of blast 
injuries to the eye has risen dramatically among servicemembers of Iraq 
and Afghanistan due to explosive weapons such as IEDs. Current 
protective eye equipment--glasses, goggles, and face shields--are 
designed to protect mainly against high-velocity projectiles, not blast 
waves from IEDs.
  In Iraq and Afghanistan, upward of 13 percent of all injuries were 
traumatic eye injuries, totaling more than 197,000. One published study 
covering 2000 to 2010 estimated that deployment-related eye injuries 
and blindness have cost a total of $25 billion. Notably, eye-injured 
servicemembers have only a 20-percent return-to-duty rate compared to 
an 80-percent rate for other battle trauma.
  Since 2009, $49 million in this Department of Defense medical 
research program has gone to research for the prevention and treatment 
of eye injury and disease that result in eye degeneration and 
impairment or loss of vision. From the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts, 
a published study covering 2000 to 2010 estimated that these injuries 
have cost a total of $25 billion. Eye-injured soldiers have only 20-
percent return-to-duty rates.
  Research at Johns Hopkins, where they received grants to study why 
eye injuries make up such a high percentage of combat casualty, found 
that the blast wave causes eye tissue to tear, and protections like 
goggles can actually trap blast reverberations. University of Iowa 
researchers developed a handheld device to analyze the pupil's reaction 
to light as a quick test for eye damage.
  So you look at it and say: Well, why would we do vision research at 
the Department of Defense? Here is the answer: What our men and women 
in uniform are facing with these IEDs and the blast reverberations--
damage to their eyesight and even blindness--wasn't being protected 
with current equipment. Is this worth an investment by the U.S. 
Government of less than two-tenths of 1 percent of the Department of 
Defense budget? I think it is. I think it is critically important that 
we stand behind this kind of research and not second guess people who 
are involved.
  We are not wasting money in this research; we are investing money in 
research to protect the men and women in uniform and make sure their 
lives are whole and make sure they are willing and able to defend this 
country when called upon.
  This idea of Chairman McCain--of eliminating this program with new 
bureaucracy and redtape--is at the expense of military members, their 
families, and veterans. We have made a promise to these men and women 
who enlisted in our military that we will stand by them through the 
battle and when they come home. That should be a promise we keep when 
it comes to medical research as well.
  I retain the remainder of my time.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to start by thanking Senator 
Durbin, Senator Cochran, and all my colleagues here today for their 
work to support critical investments in medical research at the 
Department of Defense. I am proud to stand with them, but frankly, I am 
also really disappointed that we have to be here.
  For decades, investments in medical research by the Department of 
Defense have advanced improvements in the treatment of some of our 
toughest diseases. DOD medical research funding has led to the 
development of new risk assessment tools that help evaluate the 
likelihood of breast cancer recurrence, as well as new tests to 
determine the potential spread of a primary tumor. It has helped 
advance research that could lead to treatment for the debilitating and, 
to-date, incurable disease ALS. It is supporting ongoing research into 
improvements in cognitive therapy and access to treatment for children 
with autism. And I could go on.
  DOD medical research programs have had such an impact on the lives of 
tens of millions of servicemembers and their families, as well as 
patients across the country. These programs certainly don't deserve to 
be on the chopping block, so it is very concerning to me that the 
defense authorization bill we are currently debating would severely 
restrict the scope of DOD research and undermine critical DOD support 
for research efforts on everything from breast cancer, to MS, to lung 
cancer, and much more.
  If you are serving your country and have a child struggling with 
autism or if you are a veteran with severe hearing loss or if you are 
one of the many patients across the country waiting and hoping for a 
treatment or cure that hasn't been discovered yet, I am sure you would 
want to know that your government is doing everything it can to support 
research that could make all the difference.
  I am proud to be supporting the amendment that we are discussing 
today, which would ensure that groundbreaking, and in some cases 
lifesaving, medical research at the Department of Defense can continue, 
and I urge all of my colleagues to join us. Thank you.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in this promising time, there are no 
resources too great to contribute to

[[Page S3500]]

groundbreaking medical research. Key discoveries, new technologies and 
techniques, and tremendous leaps in our knowledge and understanding 
about disease and human health are being made every day.
  Biomedical research conducted by the Defense Department has been a 
critical tool in combatting rare diseases here in the United States and 
across the world. Since 1992, the Department of Defense's 
Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program, CDMRP, has invested 
billions of dollars in lifesaving research to support our 
servicemembers and their families, veterans, and all Americans. I am 
proud to have been involved with starting this program, and I have 
fought year in and year out to support it. As the Senate continues to 
debate this year's National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, I am 
concerned that the Senate's bill includes two harmful provisions that 
would undermine medical research in the CDMRP and erode these paths to 
vital progress, taking hope away from millions of Americans.
  The CDMRP has long led to advancements in the field of medicine. From 
the development of early-detection techniques for diagnosing cancer and 
improving ways to restore mobility to patients suffering from 
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, ALS, to advancing treatments for 
traumatic brain injury and progressing the approval of drugs to treat 
prostate and breast cancer. For more than two decades, this valuable 
medical research program has invested over $11 billion in the health of 
our servicemembers and their families and developed techniques to 
combat various cancers and the many rare and debilitating diseases 
faced by so many Americans.
  I was proud to be there from the start of the CDMRP. Those efforts 
evolved from linking a bill I coauthored in 1992 to create a national 
network of cancer registries to assist researchers in understanding 
breast cancer, with an effort led by former Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, 
myself, and several others, to redirect military funds to breast cancer 
research. With the help of the late Pat Barr of the Breast Cancer 
Network of Vermont and the many others who were the driving force 
behind national breast cancer networks, the CDMRP received its first 
appropriations of $210 million for breast cancer research in the 1993 
defense budget. Since then, the program has invested $3 billion in 
breast cancer research, leading to exponential nationwide reductions in 
the incidence of the disease. It was due to these investments that Pat 
Barr herself was able to enjoy an active and fulfilling life for 
decades after her own diagnosis and was able to spend so many years 
fiercely fighting for the research that has touched, improved or saved 
millions of lives.
  The structure of the CDMRP has always advanced biomedical research 
for servicemembers and their families, as well as the public at large. 
It is shortsighted and frustrating that two needless provisions have 
been dropped into this year's NDAA, which would bar the Department of 
Defense from researching the medical needs of military families and 
veterans and require grant applications to comply with weapon system 
acquisition rules instead of the carefully peer-reviewed applications 
process from which all good science grows.
  To redefine the definition of who can benefit from lifesaving 
treatment and research to cancer and other diseases is misguided and 
counterproductive. If we are to advance medicine in one population, 
these tools should be made available to everyone. If we change the 
scope of these long fought efforts, we deny researchers the knowledge 
they need to carry out science that saves lives. It hinders medical 
progress for our children and grandchildren.
  Whereas proponents of these provisions claim they will bring cost 
savings in the long term, we all know this is simply not true. Disease 
does not discriminate between servicemember, family member, veteran, or 
civilian. When it comes to medical research, we shouldn't either. That 
is why I am proud to support the bipartisan Durbin amendment to strike 
these unnecessary and hindering provisions from the bill, which would 
needlessly block access to innovative discoveries in these burgeoning 
fields of medicine.
  Biomedical research is a proven tool that brings us closer every day 
to finding cures and expanding treatments for debilitating conditions 
across the world. We cannot allow this year's defense authorization 
bill to deny our veterans, the families of our servicemembers, and 
other Americans victimized by ravaging disease the promise of such 
groundbreaking medical knowledge. I urge all Senators to join me in 
supporting Senator Durbin's amendment and in defeating any provisions 
in the bill that threaten the continued success of the CDMRP. We must 
not lose sight of the progress we have made in the fight against breast 
cancer and other debilitating conditions. This valuable medical 
research program has paved the way for so many, and we must keep it 
strong for generations to come.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 22 minutes.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I will just take a couple of minutes to keep everybody 
awake.
  The history of this program is pretty interesting. In 1992, by 
mandate, the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program began 
within the Department of Defense with an earmark of $20 million for 
breast cancer. So, back in 1992, somebody came up with the idea that we 
should put some money regarding breast cancer research into the 
Department of Defense bill.
  Everybody I know of wants to defeat breast cancer and fund research 
at an appropriate level. Why did they do it in the Defense bill? 
Because the Defense bill was going to pass. It is the one thing around 
here that we all eventually get done because we have to defend the 
Nation. So that idea of a $20 million earmark for breast cancer--fast 
forward from 1992 to now--is $900-something million of research at the 
Department of Defense. It went from $20 million to $900 million. It has 
been about $1 billion a year for a very long time.
  The reason these programs are put in the Department of Defense--some 
of them are related to the Department of Defense and veterans; many of 
them are not, and the ones that can make it in this bill are going to 
get their funding apart from their traditional research funding--is 
that the Department of Defense will get funded.
  All we are saying is that, given the budget problems we have as a 
nation and the constraints on our military due to defense cuts and 
shrinking budgets, now is the time to reevaluate the way we do 
business. It is not that we are against medical research in the Defense 
Department's budget; we just want it to be related to defense. I know 
that is a novel idea, but it makes sense to me.
  All the things that Senator Durbin identified as being done in the 
Department of Defense--I am sure most of them are very worthy. Let's 
just make sure they are funded outside of the Department of Defense 
because the money is being taken away from defending the Nation. Taking 
money out of the Defense Department to do research is probably not a 
smart thing to do now if it is not related to defending the Nation, 
given the state of the world and the state of the military.
  So this is business as usual, even if it is just $900 million, which 
is still a lot of money. I think it is time to relook at the way we 
fund the Defense Department and how it runs and try to get it in a spot 
that is more sustainable. So what have we done? We have said: You can 
still do research at the Department of Defense, but the Secretary of 
Defense has to certify it is related to our defense needs--and a pretty 
liberal interpretation of that.
  If you are going to do research, you have to go through the normal 
contracting procedures that everybody else has to go through. Those two 
changes really make sense to me.
  Here is the point: If you apply the test that it has got to be 
related to defending the Nation in a fairly liberal interpretation, 
probably two-thirds or three-fourths of this account would not pass 
that test. So that means there is going to be $600 million or $700 
million--maybe more--that will go to defense needs, not research needs.
  That doesn't mean that we don't need to spend the money on research. 
Most of it we probably do. The person delivering this speech is also 
the cochairman of the NIH, which is the part

[[Page S3501]]

of the government that does medical research. I want to increase that 
budget tremendously because the dividends to the taxpayers and to our 
overall health are real. I just don't want to continue to use the 
Defense Department as a way to do research unrelated to the defense 
needs of this country because I don't think that is the right way to do 
it.
  When you are this far in debt and the military is under this much 
pressure, it is time for change. That is all this is--making a 
commonsense change to a practice that started at $20 million and is now 
almost $1 billion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Almost 16 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me respond to my friend from South 
Carolina. I keep giving examples of medical research in this program 
that relate directly to members of the military and their families and 
to veterans. All I hear back in return is: Well, we ought to be doing 
this research someplace else. Why? Don't we want the research to be 
done by the Department that has a special responsibility to the men and 
women in uniform and their families as well as veterans?
  Let me give you another example that I think really helps to tell 
this story of research that is jeopardized by the McCain language in 
this authorization bill. Joan Gray graduated from West Point in the 
first class that included women. She was commissioned in the U.S. Army 
as a platoon leader, commander, staff officer. After 5 years of 
service, she sustained a spinal cord injury in a midair collision 
during a nighttime tactical parachute jump. Joan Gray's wounds required 
12 vertebral fusions. She is now an ambulatory paraplegic and a member 
of the Paralyzed Veterans of America.
  Spinal injuries sustained from trauma impact servicemembers deployed 
overseas and in training. Over 5 percent of combat evacuations in Iraq 
and Afghanistan were for spinal trauma. Spinal cord injuries require 
specialized care and support for acute injury, disability adjustment, 
pain management, quality of life.
  Since 2009, Congress has appropriated in this account--which is going 
to be eliminated by this amendment--over $157 million to research the 
entire continuum of prehospital care, treatment, and rehab needs for 
spinal cord injury. The amount and extent of bleeding within the spinal 
cord can predict how well an individual will recover from a spinal cord 
injury.
  Researchers at Ohio State University and the University of Maryland 
at Baltimore examined why some injuries cause more or less bleeding. 
They studied early markers of injury and found an FDA-approved diabetes 
drug that proved to reduce lesion size and injury duration in spinal 
cord injuries. At the University of Pennsylvania, researchers have 
studied how to facilitate surviving nerve axons to grow across an 
injury site after spinal cord trauma to improve nerve generation and 
functionality.
  Is this research important? I would say it is. It is certainly 
important to those who serve us. It is important to their families as 
well. It should be important to all of us. Why are we cutting corners 
when it comes to medical research for our military and our veterans? 
Why is this account, which is less than two-tenths of 1 percent of this 
total budget, the target they want to cut? Medical research for the 
military and the veterans--every single grant that is approved has to 
go through the test of military relevance.
  It isn't a question of dreaming up some disease that might have an 
application someplace in the world. A panel looks at the research that 
is requested and asks: Does this have relevance today to our military 
and their families and veterans as well? If it doesn't pass this test, 
it is finished. That is why I am fighting to protect this money. So 
much has come out of this that it is of value to the men and women in 
uniform and veterans. Putting this new procedure in here making them go 
through the procurement requirements that we have for the largest 
defense contractors in America is unnecessary, burdensome, and will 
delay this process and make it more expensive.

  I would like to hear from the other side one example of abuse in 
these research grants that would justify changing the rules that have 
been in place for 24 years. Come up with that example. You are going to 
be hard-pressed to find it. After more than 2,000 of these grants a 
year for years--it has gone on for 24 years--I am waiting for the first 
example.
  What I think is really at stake here is an effort to make it more 
difficult, more cumbersome, and less appealing to the universities to 
do this kind of research, and we will be the lesser for it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on this 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 17 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed 9 minutes and that Senator Johnson then be allowed 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent that the remaining time be for 
the Senator from South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, would you please let me know when 8 
minutes has elapsed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. The Senator will be notified.
  (The remarks of Mr. Alexander and Mr. Johnson pertaining to the 
introduction of S.J. Res. 34 are printed in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I wish to first inquire how much is 
remaining on my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 11\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I wish to comment on the two pending 
amendments.
  I will begin by thanking my colleague from South Carolina for his 
thoughtful and kind words about the collaboration we have both 
witnessed on the committee as we brought this bill to the floor under 
the leadership of Chairman McCain.


                           Amendment No. 4204

  First, with respect to the Inhofe-Mikulski amendment, I share their 
concerns about the quality of commissaries. It is an essential service 
for military personnel. In fact, it is really in the fabric of military 
life, being able to go to a commissary. It is an important benefit, 
particularly for junior members, those who aren't as well paid as more 
senior members of the military. But both the chairman and my colleagues 
on the committee--many of them recognize the need to look for alternate 
approaches for delivering services to military families but doing so in 
a way that can save resources that could be used for operations and 
maintenance, for training, equipment--all the critical needs we are 
seeing much more clearly at this moment.
  So we have proposed--and I support the chairman's proposal--to try a 
pilot program for commissaries that would be run by commercial 
entities. I think there is merit to this proposal. I want to emphasize 
that it is a pilot program. It is not a wholesale replacement of the 
commissary system. It is designed to test in real time whether a 
commercial entity can effectively use the resources and the operation 
of the commissary to better serve military personnel.
  We have come a long way from years ago when the commissary was 
practically the only place a servicemember could get groceries or get 
the supplies they need for their home. Today, go outside any military 
base and you will see a Target, a Walmart, and every other combination 
of stores. Frankly, our young soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen 
are used to going there. They are used to going to both places looking 
for bargains. They are used to the service. This is no longer the 
isolated military of decades ago where literally the only place you 
could shop was the commissary, and I think we have to recognize that.
  The other thing we have to recognize is that there is now an interest 
by many grocery chains to test this model, to see if, in fact, they can 
deliver better services to military personnel.

[[Page S3502]]

  I think that test should be made. That is the essence of the proposal 
within the Armed Services Committee mark. There is an ongoing study of 
this by the Department of Defense which I think is helpful. Part of the 
conclusion is this: ``The Department is critically assessing the 
privatization of all portion(s) of the commissary system.'' I will 
emphasize that this amendment does not support the privatization of all 
commissary systems at this time; they are looking at that issue. 
``Initial conversations with interested business entities informed the 
Department of private sector willingness to engage, which is leading to 
more thorough market analysis, including a more formal Request for 
Information.'' This request was issued in May, just a few weeks ago.
  I think we are now positioned to move forward and test this model, 
and that is what we are asking for--a pilot test. It is sensible. It is 
limited. We will learn quite quickly and very effectively whether this 
model works and what its potential is. I think in that process, too, we 
can conduct it in such a way that we will be able to structure, if it 
is a valuable enterprise, relationships between commercial entities 
that not only protect military personnel but enhance their experience 
at the commissary. That is the goal. It is not just to save dollars--
that is important--but also to make sure that their experience in the 
commissary is both adequate and, in effect, more than adequate.
  Mr. President, let me turn to Senator Durbin's amendment very 
quickly. I support this amendment. The reason I do is not only because 
of the eloquence of the Senator from Illinois about the success of this 
program. But how we got here, as described by my colleague, to me, is a 
crucial point. It is a combination of history, of rules, of budgeting 
20-plus years ago. But in the interim we have been able to create a 
useful medical research enterprise which I think will be dismantled--
not intentionally. That is not the intent of the chairman or of any of 
the supporters of this provision in the bill. In fact, as the chairman 
said, he would stand up and support reallocating these funds someplace 
else. My colleague from South Carolina suggested, I believe, NIH. But 
if we look at how difficult it is to fund the Health and Human Services 
budget here--and this is what drives it--the reality is if these funds 
are taken out of this bill, they will not reappear, even through the 
best and sincere efforts of many of my colleagues, elsewhere. We will 
lose this funding, and we will lose hugely valuable resources.
  As to the whole issue with certification by the Secretary of Defense, 
if we step back, this research has been so effective, and there is a 
linkage to every military member. It might not be as dramatic as a 
prosthesis to fix someone who lost their limb in combat, but certainly 
their wife, their child--pediatric diseases--may be affected. This 
research affects every American.
  For those reasons, I am going to support Senator Durbin's amendment. 
He has stated the case very well about unintended overhead caused by 
the certification process and all of the related issues. But I think 
the essence here is we have a valuable national resource that through 
the history and the bureaucratic and congressional procedures and 
policies has been embedded in the Defense Department. If we do not 
support Senator Durbin's amendment, we will lose that. We won't 
recapture it elsewhere in another spending bill or in another 
authorization bill. I just think it is too much to lose.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority has 5 minutes, and the majority 
has 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Reed for his comments in 
support of my amendment. This is about medical research, and if I have 
a passion for the subject, I do. Certainly, I believe most of us do.
  There comes a point in your life where you get a diagnosis or news 
about someone you love, and you pray to goodness that there has been 
some research to develop a drug or a procedure or a device which gives 
them a chance for life.
  Do I want to invest more money in medical research so that there are 
more chances for life? You bet I do. And I believe our highest priority 
should be the men and women in uniform and their families and our 
veterans. That is why I will stand here today and defend this 
Department of Defense medical research program for as long as I have 
breath in my lungs. I believe it is essential that once we have made 
the promise to men and women in uniform, we stand by them and we keep 
our word, and our word means standing by medical research.
  Some have made light of issues being investigated under medical 
research--not anyone on the floor today, but others.
  Prostate cancer. What are they doing investigating prostate cancer at 
the Department of Defense? Servicemembers are twice as likely to 
develop prostate cancer as those who don't serve in the military. Why? 
I don't know the answer. Is it worth the research to answer that 
question? Of course it is.
  Alzheimer's and Department of Defense medical research. For the men 
and women who served our country and have experienced a traumatic brain 
injury, their risk of developing Alzheimer's disease is much higher. 
For those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, the risk is 
also higher. So, as to Alzheimer's research at the Department of 
Defense, here is the reason.
  Lou Gehrig's disease, or ALS. We sure know that one; don't we? 
According to the ALS Association, military veterans are twice as likely 
to be diagnosed with ALS relative to the general population. Why? 
Should we ask the question? Do we owe it to the men and women in 
uniform to ask this question about ALS? We certainly do.
  Lung cancer. Of course there is too much smoking in the military and 
that is part of the reason, but the incidence is higher.
  Gulf war illness. It wasn't until the Department of Defense initiated 
its research that we finally linked up why so many gulf war veterans 
were coming home sick. Now we are treating them, as we should.
  There is traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, epilepsy, and 
seizure. The list goes on. To walk away from this research is to walk 
away from our promise to the men and women in uniform, their families, 
and our veterans. I am not going to stand for that. I hope the majority 
of the Senate will support my effort to eliminate this language that 
has been put into the Department of Defense authorization bill, and say 
to the chairman, once and for all: Stop this battle against medical 
research. There are many ways to save money in the Department of 
Defense. Let's not do it at the expense of medical research and at the 
expense of the well-being of the men and women who serve our country.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  (The remarks of Mr. Isakson pertaining to the introduction of S.J. 
Res. 34 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, as to the Durbin amendment, I want people 
to understand what we are trying to do.
  There is $900 million spent on medical research in the Department of 
Defense. All we are asking is that the money being spent be related to 
the defense needs of this country. Of that $900 million, probably two 
thirds of the research money will not pass the test of being related to 
the Defense Department.
  If you care about the men and women in uniform--which we all do--that 
is probably $600 million or $700 million to help a military that is in 
decline.
  In terms of research dollars, I have worked with Senators Durbin, 
Alexander, and Blunt to increase NIH funding. This idea of taking money 
out of the Defense Department's budget to do medical research unrelated 
to the defense needs of this country needs to stop because the military 
is under siege. We have the smallest Navy since 1915 and the smallest 
Army since 1940. If we really want to reform the way things are done up 
here, this is a good start.
  To those programs that don't make the cut in DOD, we will have to 
find another place. If they make sense, I will help you find another 
place. To those medical research items that survive the cut, they are 
going to have to

[[Page S3503]]

go through the normal contracting procedure to make sure we are doing 
it competitively.
  I don't think that is too much to ask. If you want things to change 
in Washington, somebody has to start the process of change. It is long 
overdue to stop spending money in the Department of Defense's budget 
for things unrelated to the Department of Defense, even though many of 
them are worthy.
  The point we are trying to make is that our military needs every 
dollar it can get, and we need to look at the way we are doing business 
anew. That is exactly what this bill does, and Senator Durbin takes us 
back to the old way of doing it.
  Finally, the whole idea of medical research in the Department of 
Defense budget started with a $20 million earmark for breast cancer 
that is now $900 million. Why? Because if you can make it into DOD's 
bill, you are going to get your program funded. It is not about medical 
research. It is about the power of somebody to get the medical research 
program in the budget of the Department of Defense. It is not a merit-
based process. It needs to be.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute, 45 seconds.
  Mr. DURBIN. And on the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute, 15 seconds.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I will conclude.
  I would just say to my friend from South Carolina that I have gone 
through a long list of research projects at the Department of Defense 
and their medical research program, and each and every one of them I 
have linked up to medical families and peculiar circumstances affecting 
our military. That is why I think this Department of Defense medical 
research is so critical.
  I have yet to hear the other side say that one of these is wasteful, 
and they can't. If our men and women in uniform are suffering from gulf 
war illnesses, of course we want the Department of Defense or any other 
medical research group to try to find out what is the cause of the 
problem and what we can do about it.
  When it comes to the incidents of cancer being higher among veterans, 
are you worried about that? I sure am. Why would it be? Should we ask 
that question? Of course we should. And we do that through legitimate 
medical research.
  Here is what the Institute of Medicine said about this medical 
research program: It ``has shown that it has been an efficiently 
managed and scientifically productive effort and that it is a valuable 
component of the nation's health research enterprise.''
  This is not wasted money. This is medical research for the men and 
women in uniform, their families, and the veterans who served this 
country. I will stand here and fight for it every minute. To those who 
say we will strengthen our military if we do less medical research on 
behalf of the men and women in uniform and veterans, that doesn't make 
us a stronger military.
  Let us keep our word to the men and women in uniform and to the 
veterans. We have told them we would stand behind them when they came 
home, and we have to keep our word.
  I ask unanimous consent that a list of 147 organizations that support 
the Durbin amendment be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


    groups opposing sections 756/898 & supporting durbin amdt #4369

       Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Action to Cure Kidney 
     Cancer, Adult Congenital Heart Association, Alliance for 
     Lupus Research/Lupus Research Institute, ALS Association, 
     Alzheimer's Association, American Academy of Dermatology 
     Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American 
     Association for Cancer Research, American Association for 
     Dental Research, American Association of Clinical Urologists, 
     American Brain Tumor Association, American Cancer Society 
     Cancer Action Network, American Congress of Obstetricians and 
     Gynecologists, American Dental Association, American Diabetes 
     Association, American Gastroenterological Association, 
     American Heart Association, American Lung Association, 
     American Psychological Association.
       American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, American 
     Society of Nephrology, American Thoracic Society, American 
     Urological Association, Aplastic Anemia and MDS International 
     Foundation, Arthritis Foundation, Association of American 
     Cancer Institutes, Association of American Medical Colleges, 
     Association of American Universities, Association of Public 
     and Land-grant Universities, Asbestos Disease Awareness 
     Organization, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, 
     Autism Speaks, AVAC: Global Advocacy for HIV Prevention, 
     Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network, Cancer Support Community, 
     Caring Together New York, Children's Heart Foundation, 
     Children's Tumor Foundation, Citizens United for Research in 
     Epilepsy (CURE), Coalition for National Security Research 
     (CNSR), Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Colon Cancer Alliance, 
     Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America, CureHHT.
       Debbie's Dream Foundation: Curing Stomach Cancer, Digestive 
     Disease National Coalition, Duke University, Duke University 
     School of Medicine, Dystonia Medical Research Foundation, 
     Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, Endocrine 
     Society, Esophageal Cancer Action Network, Inc., Fight 
     Colorectal Cancer, FORCE: Facing Our Risk of Cancer 
     Empowered, Foundation for Women's Cancer, Foundation to 
     Eradicate Duchenne, Georgetown University, GBS/CIDP 
     Foundation International, Hartford HealthCare Center, 
     Hepatitis Foundation International, HIV Medicine Association, 
     Hydrocephalus Association, Indiana University, Infectious 
     Diseases Society of America, International Foundation for 
     Functional GI Disorders, International Myeloma Foundation.
       Interstitial Cystitis Association, Johns Hopkins 
     University, Kidney Cancer Association, LAM Foundation, 
     Lineberger Clinic Cancer Center at the University of North 
     Carolina, Littlest Tumor Foundation, Living Beyond Breast 
     Cancer, Lung Cancer Alliance, Lupus Foundation of America, 
     Lymphangiomatosis & Gorham's Disease Alliance, Lymphoma 
     Research Foundation, Malecare Cancer Support, Melanoma 
     Research Foundation, The Michael J. Fox Foundation for 
     Parkinson's Research, Michigan State University, Minnesota 
     Ovarian Cancer Alliance, Muscular Dystrophy Association, 
     National Alliance for Eye and Vision Research, National 
     Association of Nurse Practitioners In Women's Health, 
     National Autism Association, National Breast Cancer 
     Coalition, National Fragile X Foundation, National Gulf War 
     Resource Center, National Kidney Foundation.
       National Multiple Sclerosis Society, National Ovarian 
     Cancer Coalition, NephCure Kidney International, 
     Neurofibromatosis Arizona, Neurofibromatosis Central Plains, 
     Neurofibromatosis Michigan, Neurofibromatosis (NF) Midwest, 
     Neurofibromatosis Network, Neurofibromatosis Northeast, Nurse 
     Practitioners in Women's Health, The Ohio State University, 
     Oncology Nursing Society, Ovarian Cancer Research Fund 
     Alliance, Pancreatic Cancer Action Network, Parent Project 
     Muscular Dystrophy (PPMD), Pediatric Congenital Heart 
     Association, Penn State University, Prostate Cancer 
     Foundation, Prostate Health Education Network, Pulmonary 
     Hypertension Association, Research!America.
       RESULTS, Rettsyndrome.org, Rutgers, The State University of 
     New Jersey, Sabin Vaccine Institute, Scleroderma Foundation, 
     Sleep Research Society, Society of Gynecologic Oncology, 
     State University of New York, Susan G. Komen, Treatment 
     Action Group, TB Alliance, Texas Neurofibromatosis 
     Foundation, Theresa's Research Foundation, Tuberous Sclerosis 
     Alliance, University of Arizona Cancer Center at Dignity 
     Health St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, University 
     of California-Irvine, University of California System, 
     University of Central Florida, University of Kansas, 
     University of Kansas Medical Center, University of 
     Pittsburgh, University of Washington, University of 
     Wisconsin-Madison, US Hereditary Angioedema Association.
       Us TOO International Prostate Cancer Education and Support 
     Network, The V Foundation for Cancer Research, Vanderbilt 
     University, Veterans for Common Sense, Veterans Health 
     Council, Vietnam Veterans of America, Washington Global 
     Health Alliance, Washington State Neurofibromatosis Families, 
     Weill Cornell Medicine, WomenHeart: The National Coalition 
     for Women with Heart Disease, Young Survival Coalition, ZERO-
     The End of Prostate Cancer.


                           Amendment No. 4369

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4369.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4369.

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

 (Purpose: To provide that certain provisions in this Act relating to 
  limitations, transparency, and oversight regarding medical research 
 conducted by the Department of Defense shall have no force or effect)

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

[[Page S3504]]

  


     SEC. 764. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS RELATING TO 
                   LIMITATIONS, TRANSPARENCY, AND OVERSIGHT 
                   REGARDING MEDICAL RESEARCH CONDUCTED BY THE 
                   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

       (a) Medical Research and Development Projects.--Section 
     756, relating to a prohibition on funding and conduct of 
     certain medical research and development projects by the 
     Department of Defense, shall have no force or effect.
       (b) Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Efforts and 
     Procurement Activities Related to Medical Research.--Section 
     898, relating to a limitation on authority of the Secretary 
     of Defense to enter into contracts, grants, or cooperative 
     agreements for congressional special interest medical 
     research programs under the congressionally directed medical 
     research program of the Department of Defense, shall have no 
     force or effect.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the Durbin amendment.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 32, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 90 Leg.]

                                YEAS--66

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--32

     Barrasso
     Coats
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Paul
     Perdue
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Sullivan
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Sanders
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 4369) was agreed to.
  (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)


                            vote explanation

 Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, due to a prior commitment, I regret 
I was not present to vote on Senate amendment No. 4369, offered by 
Senator Durbin. I am a cosponsor of this amendment, and had I been 
present, I would have voted in support of the amendment. The CDMRP has 
produced breakthroughs in treatment for a variety of diseases and 
medical conditions, and it deserves our continued support.


                           Amendment No. 4204

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate, equally 
divided, in relation to the Inhofe amendment.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, a year ago, when we were considering this 
same bill, the language of the bill that was presented to us had a 
pilot program that would temporarily look at privatizing five 
commissaries. We elected not to do that.
  We had an amendment at that time with 25 cosponsors, and it was not 
necessary to actually have a rollcall vote, and it overwhelmingly was 
passed that we would not do that until we had a study of DOD with an 
assessment by GAO on privatization. That has not happened yet. The 
initial report came out from GAO and it is negative on having the 
privatization language at this point.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ayotte). The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, the key aspect of this legislation that 
was included in the committee mark is that it is a pilot, and I 
believe, along with the chairman, this is the best way to evaluate the 
merits or demerits of privatization of commissaries.
  It will allow an evaluation that is not theoretical, not a report but 
an actual company actively engaged in running a facility. The goal is 
not just to maintain the commissaries, the goal is to enhance the value 
of service to men and women. I think, along with the chairman, this 
approach is an appropriate approach and would do just that.
  I urge rejection of the Inhofe amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has 7 seconds.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, we have 40 cosponsors. I advise each 
Senator to look at the cosponsors before voting on this. However, I 
would have no objection to a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  The question is on agreeing to the Inhofe amendment No. 4204.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 70, nays 28, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 91 Leg.]

                                YEAS--70

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Inhofe
     Kaine
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Tillis
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--28

     Carper
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Corker
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johnson
     King
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Sasse
     Thune
     Toomey

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Sanders
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 4204) was agreed to.
  (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)


                            vote explanation

 Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, due to a prior commitment, I regret 
I was not present to vote on Senate amendment No. 4204, offered by 
Senator Inhofe. I am a cosponsor of this amendment, and had I been 
present, I would have voted in support of the amendment. It would be 
imprudent for Congress to authorize this privatization, possibly 
jeopardizing an important benefit for our military men and women, their 
families, as well as retired servicemembers, before receiving the 
thorough study on the potential impacts as requested in last year's 
National Defense Authorization Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, it is my understanding that we are 
trying to set up the amendment and second-degree amendment on the 
increase of an authorization of $17 billion. It is my understanding 
there will also be a second-degree amendment.
  I just want to say a few words about the amendment which is pending. 
We

[[Page S3505]]

were trying to reach an agreement as to when we will have debate and 
vote on both the second degree and the amendment itself.
  I would point out that the unfunded requirements of the military 
services total $23 billion for the next fiscal year alone. 
Sequestration threatens to return in 2018, taking away another $100 
billion from our military. The amendment would increase defense 
spending by $18 billion.
  I will be pleased to go through all of the programs where there is 
increased spending, but I would point out that those increases were in 
the 5-year defense plan but were cut because of the authorization of 
$17 billion--the President's request of $17 billion from what we had 
last year.
  From a quick glance around the world, I think we can certainly make 
one understand that the world is not a safer place than it was last 
year. We are cutting into readiness, maintenance, and all kinds of 
problems are beginning to arise in the military.
  My friend from Rhode Island and I will be discussing and debating 
both the second-degree amendment and the amendment, and hopefully we 
will have votes either tomorrow or on Thursday, depending on 
negotiations between the leaders.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I thank and commend the chairman. As he 
indicated, he has proposed an amendment, and he is also allowing us to 
prepare a second-degree amendment, which I would like to offer as soon 
as it is ready and then conduct debate on a very important topic; that 
is, investing in our national security in the broadest sense and doing 
it wisely and well. Then, I would hope again--subject to the 
deliberations of the leaders on both sides--that we could have a vote 
on both the underlying amendment and the second-degree amendment 
tomorrow or the succeeding day.
  Again, I thank the chairman for not only bringing this issue to the 
floor but also for giving us the opportunity to prepare an appropriate 
amendment.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I understand that the Senator from 
Oklahoma and the Senator from New Mexico are interested in getting 
noncontroversial legislation up and completed. I am more than pleased 
to yield time from our discussion of the Defense authorization bill for 
the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. If the Senator would yield, I would appreciate that very 
much. We are talking about the TSCA bill, and it is one that is almost 
a must-pass type of bill. We have support on both sides--I think almost 
total support. If we could have another 10 minutes to talk to a couple 
of people, I would like to make that motion.
  If you could, go ahead and talk about the Defense bill.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. When he gets ready, we 
will obviously be ready to yield to the Senator from Oklahoma for 
consideration of that important legislation.
  In the meantime, I would like to point out that, as part of this 
package of $18 billion, it increases the military pay raise to 2.1 
percent. The current administration's budget request sets pay raises at 
1.6 percent.
  It fully funds troops in Afghanistan at 9,800. The budget request of 
the President funds troop levels at 6,217.
  It stops the cuts to end strength and capacity. It restores the end 
strength for Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force. For example, it 
cancels the planned reduction of 15,000 active Army soldiers. If the 
planned reduction actually was implemented, we would have one of the 
smallest armies in history, certainly in recent history.
  It funds the recommendations of the National Commission on the Future 
of the Army. It includes additional funding for purchasing 36 
additional UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters, 5 AH-64 Apaches, and 5 CH-47 
Chinook helicopters. I would point out that all of those were in 
keeping with the recommendations of the National Commission on the 
Future of the Army.
  It adds $2.2 billion to readiness to help alleviate problems each of 
the military services are grappling with. Of the $23 billion in 
unfunded requirements received by the military services, almost $7 
billion of it was identified as readiness related.
  It addresses the Navy's ongoing strike fighter shortfall and the U.S. 
Marine Corps aviation readiness crisis by increasing aircraft 
procurement. It addresses high priority unfunded requirements for the 
Navy and Marine Corps, including 14 F/A-18 Super Hornets and 11 F-35 
Joint Strike Fighters.
  It supports the Navy shipbuilding program, and it provides the 
balance of funding necessary to fully fund the additional fiscal year 
2016 DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. It restores the cut of the 
one littoral combat ship in fiscal year 2017.
  It supports the European Reassurance Initiative with the 
manufacturing and modernization of 14 M1 Abrams tanks and 14 M2 Bradley 
fighting vehicles.
  There is also increased support for Israeli cooperation on air 
defense programs of some $200 million.
  What this is is an effort to make up for the shortfall that would 
bring us up to last year's number--last year's. Again, I want to point 
out--and we will talk more about it--we have all kinds of initiatives 
going on. We have an increase in troops' presence in Iraq and Syria; we 
are having much more participation in the European reassurance program; 
and there is more emphasis on our rebalancing in Asia. At the same 
time, we are cutting defense and making it $17 billion lower than the 
military needed and planned for last year.
  I hope that my colleagues would understand and appreciate the need, 
particularly when we look at the deep cuts and consequences of 
reductions in readiness, training, and other of the intangibles that 
make the American military the great organization--superior to all 
potential adversaries--that it is.
  I hope my colleagues will look at what we are proposing for tomorrow. 
I know the other side will have a second-degree amendment as well. I 
haven't seen it, but I would be pleased to give it utmost 
consideration, depending on its contents.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, after Memorial Day and a day after the 
72nd anniversary of D-day and at a time when we live in a more and more 
dangerous world with threats from North Korea, China, Russia, and ISIS, 
it is appropriate that we are on the floor talking about our military, 
talking about helping our troops, and doing so by strengthening our 
military.
  Senator McCain, who is the chairman of the committee, just talked 
about the fact that there is a pay raise here. There is also an 
assurance to our military that we are not going to have the kind of end 
strength that puts us in more peril.
  I applaud him and I applaud Senator Reed for their work on this bill. 
I intend to support this bill, and I hope we continue to make progress 
this week on it.


               Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Bill

  Madam President, I am up today to talk about something different. It 
is another fight that we have, and that is with this terrible epidemic 
of heroin and prescription drugs. We now have a situation where 129 
people on average are dying every single day. We have in my home State 
of Ohio and around the country epidemic levels not just of heroin and 
prescription drugs but now fentanyl, which is a synthetic form of 
heroin. It is affecting every community and every State.
  This is the eighth time I have come on the floor to talk about this 
issue since the Senate passed their legislation on March 10--every week 
we have been in session since then. Initially, I came to encourage the 
House to act and urge them to move on it. They did that a couple weeks 
ago. Now I am urging the House and the Senate to come together because 
we have some differences in our two approaches to this, but for the 
most part we have commonality. There is common ground on how to deal 
with this issue: more prevention and education, better treatment and 
recovery, helping our law enforcement to be able to deal with it.
  My message is very simple. We know what is in the House bill. We know 
what is in the Senate bill. We are starting to work together to find a 
way to come together. That is good. We need

[[Page S3506]]

to do that as soon as possible. This isn't like other issues we address 
on the floor, with all due respect. This is an emergency back home. 
This is one we know the Federal Government can be a better partner with 
State and local governments and with nonprofits. The Presiding Officer 
has been very involved in this issue over time. When we go home, we 
hear about it. This affects every single State. That is why we had a 
94-to-1 vote in this Chamber. That never happens around here. We were 
on the floor for 2\1/2\ weeks, and by the end of the debate practically 
every single Senator who voted said this is a key issue back home. I 
like this bill because it is comprehensive, it is common sense. We need 
to support it. There is a real crisis out there, and this is a 
genuinely comprehensive solution to the crisis. We have the common 
ground. We need to move forward and do so soon.
  In 88 days, since the Senate passed the legislation on March 10, more 
than 10,000 Americans--10,000 Americans--have died of drug overdoses 
from opioids. That doesn't include the hundreds of thousands of others 
who have not died from an overdose but are casualties. They have lost a 
job. They have broken their relationship with their family, with loved 
ones. They have been driven to pay for drugs by going to crime. They 
have lost hope. There are now an estimated 200,000 in Ohio who are 
suffering from addiction to heroin and prescription drugs. That is the 
size of the city of Akron, OH, a major city in my State. It is urgent. 
People understand it. There is a new poll showing that 3 in 10 Ohioans 
know someone struggling with an opioid addiction. They know people--
their family members, their friends, their coworkers, their fellow 
parishioners, their neighbors--who are experiencing the consequences we 
talked about a moment ago: a lost job, time in prison, broken 
relationships, communities being devastated. All they have to do is 
open the newspaper to be reminded of it. Every day the headlines tell 
the story of families torn apart because of addiction.
  Since my last speech on the floor about 2 weeks ago, there is more 
bad news from my State of Ohio. Two weeks ago, a 41-year-old man and 
his 19-year-old daughter, both from Ohio, were arrested together buying 
heroin. The same day, a 26-year-old man was found dead of an overdose 
near a creek in Lemon Township in Butler County. Last Thursday, in 
Steubenville, police seized 100 grams of heroin from one man. I told 
the story 2 weeks ago of Annabella, a 14-month-old from Columbus who 
died at a drug house after ingesting her mother's fentanyl-laced 
heroin. Last Thursday, a 29-year-old man in Columbus was sentenced to 9 
years in prison after his 11-month-old son, Dominic, ingested his 
father's fentanyl and died.
  Ohioans know this is happening, and we are taking action back home. 
State troopers in Ohio will soon be carrying naloxone with them, which 
is a miracle drug that can actually reverse the effects of an overdose. 
Our legislation provides more training for naloxone, also called 
Narcan. It also provides more grant opportunities for law enforcement. 
It is one reason the Fraternal Order of Police has been very supportive 
of our legislation and provided us valuable input as we were crafting 
it. In Ohio, last year alone, first responders administered Narcan 
16,000 times, saving thousands of lives.
  Our Governor, John Kasich, is conducting an awareness campaign in 
Ohio called ``Start Talking.'' The National Guard is helping out. They 
are conducting 113 events across Ohio, reaching more than 30,000 high 
school students to talk about drugs and opioid addiction. I am told 65 
National Guard members have partnered with 28 law enforcement agencies 
on counterdrug efforts. They have helped confiscate more than $6 
million in drugs already, including 235 pounds of heroin, 20 pounds of 
fentanyl, and 26 pounds of opiate pills.
  CARA would create a national awareness campaign--we think this is 
incredibly important--including making this connection between 
prescription drugs, narcotic pain pills, and heroin. Four out of five 
heroin addicts in Ohio started with prescription drugs. This is not 
included in the House-passed legislation, as one example of something 
we want to add, but I think it is critical we include it in the final 
bill we ultimately send to the President's desk and ultimately out to 
our community so this message can begin to resonate to let people know 
they should not be getting into this addiction--this funnel of 
addiction--that is so difficult.
  We are taking action in Ohio, but back in Ohio they want the Federal 
Government to be a better partner, and we can be through this 
legislation. In Cleveland, the Cuyahoga county executive, Armond 
Budish, and the County medical examiner, Dr. Thomas Gilson, last week 
asked the Federal Government to be a better partner with them. I agree 
with them. They support our legislation. So do 160 of the national 
groups--everybody who has worked with us over the years to come up with 
this nonpartisan approach. It is based on what works. It is based on 
actual evidence of the treatment that works, the recovery programs that 
work, the prevention that works.
  In Cleveland, OH, it is not hard to see why. One hundred forty people 
have died of fentanyl overdoses so far this year--record levels. 
Fentanyl is even more potent than heroin. Depending on the 
concentration, it can be 50 or more times more powerful than heroin. 
Forty-four people died of opioid overdoses in Cleveland in just the 
month of May--44 in 1 month, just 1 month, in one city. That includes 
one 6-day span when 13 people died of overdoses; 18 of those 44 lived 
in the city of Cleveland, 26 lived in the suburbs. This knows no ZIP 
Code. It is not isolated to one area. It is not isolated to rural or 
suburban or inner city. It is everywhere. No one is immune, and no one 
is unaffected by this epidemic.
  People across the country are talking about it more in the last 
couple weeks. One reason we are talking about it is because of the 
premature death of Prince, a world-renowned recording artist whose 58th 
birthday would have been celebrated yesterday. Based on the autopsy of 
Prince, we now know he died of a fentanyl overdose.
  Fentanyl is driving more of this epidemic every day. As I said, in 
2013, there were 84 fentanyl overdose deaths in Ohio. The next year it 
was 503. Sadly, this year it is going to be more than that. The new 
information about the overdose that took Prince's life has surprised 
some. After all, Prince had it all: success, fame, talent, and fortune. 
He was an amazingly talented musician, but as Paul Wax, the executive 
director of the American College of Medical Toxicology, put it, ``This 
epidemic spares no one. It affects the wealthy, the poor, the 
prominent, and the not prominent.'' He is exactly right. This epidemic 
knows no limits.
  In a way, as this becomes known, it may help get rid of the stigma 
attached to addiction that is keeping so many people from coming 
forward and getting the treatment they need as people understand it is 
everywhere. It affects our neighbors and friends regardless of our 
station in life or where we live. It happens to grandmothers. It 
happens to teenagers who just had their wisdom teeth taken out. It 
happens to the homeless, and it happens to the rich and famous.
  Prince is hardly the first celebrity case of opioid addiction. 
Celebrities like Chevy Chase and Jamie Lee Curtis have been brave 
enough to open up and talk about their struggles, and I commend them 
for that. The former Cleveland Browns wide receiver, Josh Cribbs, 
recently told ESPN:

       I grew up in the football atmosphere, and to me it's just 
     part of the game. Unfortunately, it's ingrained within the 
     players to have to deal with this, and it's almost as if 
     that's part of it. After the game, you are popping pills to 
     get back to normal, to feel normal. The pills are second 
     nature to us. They're given to us just to get through the 
     day. . . . The pills are part of the game.

  I am hopeful that if any good can come out of tragedies like Prince's 
premature death, it can be that we raise awareness about this epidemic 
and prevent new addictions from starting. Prevention is ultimately 
going to be the best way to turn the tide.
  The House-passed legislation does not include CARA's expanded 
prevention grants, which address local drug crises and are focused on 
our young people, but I am hopeful again that ultimately that will be 
included in the bill we send to the President's desk and to our 
communities.
  I know the scope of this epidemic can feel overwhelming at times, but 
there is hope. Prevention can work, treatment can work, and it does 
work.

[[Page S3507]]

  Think about Jeff Knight from the suburbs of Cleveland. He was an 
entrepreneur. He started a small landscaping business when he was just 
21 years old. The business grew and grew. He was successful. He had 
more than a dozen employees. Then, at age 27, he was prescribed 
Percocet. Percocet. He became addicted. His tolerance increased so he 
switched to OxyContin. When the pills were too expensive or he couldn't 
find enough pills, he switched to heroin because it was less expensive 
and more accessible. He started selling cocaine and Percocet to buy 
more heroin. The drugs became everything, which is what I hear from so 
many of our recovering addicts. The drugs became everything, pulling 
them away from their families, their job, and their God-given purpose 
in life.
  Within 3 years, Jeff Knight lost everything. He lost his business, he 
lost his relationship with his family, and he was arrested, but there 
he got treatment, and through a drug court program he got sober. He 
moved into a sober-living facility where there was supervision, 
accountability, and support from his peers. Again, as we are looking at 
these programs around the country and we are holding up those best 
practices, we want to fund those best practices that have that kind of 
support, not just the treatment but the strong recovery programs.
  Jeff has now been clean for 3 years. He still has that same 
entrepreneurial spirit, and he is using it now to help others. He 
actually has bought several houses in Cleveland, which he has now 
turned into sober housing for men who are addicted--all because he got 
treatment and he was in a good recovery program, which he is now 
permitting others to appreciate.
  Nine out of ten of those who need treatment aren't getting it right 
now, we are told. CARA--the Senate-passed bill--and the House bills 
both provide more help for the type of treatment programs and recovery 
that work. If we can get a comprehensive bill to the President, we can 
help more people who are struggling to get treatment, and we can give 
them more hope. It is time to act, and act quickly, to find common 
ground and get a comprehensive bill in place now so we can begin to 
help the millions who are struggling.
  Again, I appreciate the Presiding Officer's efforts in this regard. I 
ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue to promote our 
leadership to move forward, get this conference resolved, get it to the 
President's desk, and begin to help our constituents back home, all of 
whom deserve our attention on this critical issue and this epidemic 
that is affecting every community.
  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. PAUL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Federal Chemical Regulation Legislation

  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, Milton Friedman once said that if you give 
the Federal Government control of the Sahara Desert, within 5 years 
there will be a shortage of sand. I tend to agree, and it worries me 
anytime a consensus builds to federalize anything.
  I have spent the last week reading this bill, this sweeping Federal 
takeover of chemical regulations, and I am now more worried than I was 
before I read the bill. Most worrisome, beyond the specifics, is the 
creeping infestation of the business community with the idea that the 
argument is no longer about minimizing regulations but about making 
regulations regular. Businesses seem to just want uniformity of 
regulation as opposed to minimization of regulation.
  A good analogy is that of how businesses respond to malingerers who 
fake slip-and-fall injuries. Some businesses choose to limit expenses 
by just paying out small amounts, but some brave businesses choose to 
legally defend themselves against all nuisance claims. Federalizing the 
chemical regulations is like settling with the slip-and-fall 
malingerers and hoping he or she will keep their extortion at a 
reasonable level.
  In the process, though, we have abandoned principle. We will have 
given up the State laboratories where economic success and regulatory 
restraint are aligned. It is no accident that regulatory restraint 
occurs in States that host chemical companies and ensures that State 
legislatures will be well aware that the economic impact of overbearing 
regulation will be felt in their State. As a consequence, there is a 
back-and-forth and consideration both of the environment and health of 
the economy.
  Federalization of regulations separates the people who benefit from a 
successful chemical industry from the unelected bureaucrats who will 
write the regulations. Once you sever the ties, once there is no 
incentive, once nobody cares about the jobs anymore, the tendency is to 
regulate and to overregulate. Once that tie is severed, the joint 
incentive to minimize regulation is lost. In fact, this legislation 
explicitly bans the consideration of a regulation's economic cost when 
deciding whether chemicals will be put into a high-risk category. Once 
a chemical has been labeled ``high risk,'' the legal liability and 
stigma that will attach will effectively ban the substance without the 
effect on the economy ever being considered. Regardless of what the 
final regulations actually say, the subsequent public reaction and 
lawsuits will have the effect of driving the chemical out of the market 
if it is considered to be a high-risk chemical.

  If we are to ignore the cost of regulations, if we are to ignore the 
relationship between regulations and job loss, there is basically no 
limit to the fervor and ferocity that will be unleashed by bureaucrats 
whose perpetual mandate is to regulate.
  I always thought we needed more balance, not less, in deciding on new 
regulations. I always thought we should balance the environment and the 
economy. Instead of balancing the economic effects and the 
environmental effects, this bill explicitly says to regulators that 
their goal is to regulate, period. This bill explicitly states that the 
economic impact of regulations is only considered after the EPA has 
decided to regulate, after a substance has been categorized as high 
risk. Is this really the best we can do?
  Sometimes I wonder if we deserve the government we get. When the 
business community gets together and seeks Federal regulations, I 
wonder: Have they not paid any attention to what is going on in 
Washington? Are they unaware of the devastating explosion of Federal 
regulations? Are they unaware that today's overbearing regulations were 
yesterday's benign advisories? Everything starts out nice and easy: We 
are not going to overregulate you. But it never goes down; it always 
ratchets up. Are they unaware that the most benign and well-intended 
regulations of the 1970s are now written and rewritten by a President 
mad with regulatory zeal?
  For those who are unaware of the devastation the EPA has wreaked upon 
our people, I request that you come and visit us in Eastern Kentucky. 
Come and visit us in West Virginia. The EPA's War on Coal has spread a 
trail of despair amongst a proud people. Many of these counties have 
unemployment over twice the national average.
  The regulations that are crippling and destroying our jobs in 
Kentucky were not passed by Congress; these job-killing regulations are 
monsters that emerged from the toxic swamp of Big Government 
bureaucrats at the EPA. The Obama-Clinton War on Coal largely came from 
regulations that were extensions of seemingly bland, well-intended laws 
in the early 1970s, laws like the Clean Water Act that were well-
intended, legislating that you can't discharge pollutants into a 
navigable stream. I am for that, but somehow the courts and the 
bureaucrats came to decide that dirt was a pollutant and your backyard 
might have a nexus to a puddle that has a nexus to a ditch that was 
frequented by a migratory bird that once flew from the Great Lakes, so 
your backyard is the same as the Great Lakes now. It has become obscene 
and absurd, but it was all from well-intentioned, reasonable 
regulations that have gotten out of control. Now the EPA can jail you 
for putting dirt on your own land. Robert Lucas was given 10 years in 
prison for putting dirt on his own land.
  Now, since that craziness has infected the EPA, we now have the Feds

[[Page S3508]]

asserting regulatory control over the majority of the land in the 
States.
  Will the Federal takeover of the chemical regulations eventually 
morph into a war on chemical companies, similar to what happened to the 
coal industry? I don't know, but it concerns me enough to examine the 
bill closely.
  Anytime we are told that everyone is for something, anytime we are 
told that we should stand aside and not challenge the status quo, I 
become suspicious that it is precisely the time someone needs to look 
very closely at what is happening.
  I also worry about Federal laws that preempt State laws. Admittedly, 
sometimes States, such as California, go overboard and they regulate 
businesses out of existence or at least chase them to another State. 
However, California's excess is Texas's benefit.
  I grew up along the Texas coast. Many of my family members work in 
the chemical industry. Texas has become a haven because of its location 
and its reasonable regulations.
  Because Texas and Louisiana have such a mutually beneficial 
relationship with the chemical industry, it is hard to imagine a time 
when the Texas or the Louisiana Legislature would vote to overregulate 
or to ignore the cost of new regulations. It is not in their best 
interest. But it is much easier to imagine a time when 47 other States 
gang up on Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma to ratchet up a Federal 
regulatory regime to the point at which it chokes and suffocates 
businesses and their jobs. Think it can't happen? Come and visit me in 
Kentucky. Come and see the devastation. Come and see the unemployment 
that has come from EPA's overzealous regulation.
  How can it be that the very businesses that face this threat support 
this bill, support the federalization of regulation? I am sure they are 
sincere. They want uniformity and predictability--admirable desires. 
They don't want the national standard of regulations to devolve to the 
worst standard of regulations. California regulators--yes, I am talking 
about you. Yet the bill before us grandfathers in California's 
overbearing regulations. It only prevents them from getting worse.
  But everyone must realize that this bill also preempts friendly 
States, such as Texas and Louisiana, from continuing to be friendly 
States. As Federal regulations gradually or quickly grow, Texas and 
Louisiana will no longer be able to veto the excesses of Washington. 
Regulations that would never pass the Texas or Louisiana State 
Legislature will see limited opposition in Washington. Don't believe 
me? Come and see me in Kentucky and see the devastation the EPA has 
wrought in my State.
  So why in the world would businesses come to Washington and want to 
be regulated? Nothing perplexes me more or makes me madder than when 
businesses come to Washington to lobby for regulations. Unfortunately, 
it is becoming the norm, not the exception. Lately, the call to 
federalize regulations has become a cottage industry for companies to 
come to Washington and beg for Federal regulations to supersede 
troublesome State regulations. It seems like every day businesses come 
to my office to complain about regulatory abuse, and then they come 
back later in the day and say: Oh, and by the way, can you vote for 
Federal regulations on my business because the State regulations are 
killing me? But then a few years later, they come back--the same 
businesses--and they complain that the regulatory agencies are 
ratcheting up the regulations.
  Food distributors clamor for Federal regulations on labeling. 
Restaurants advocate for national menu standards. Now that we have 
Federal standards, lo and behold, we also have Federal menu crimes. You 
can be imprisoned in America for posting the wrong calorie count on 
your menu. I am not making this up. You can be put in prison for 
putting down the wrong calorie count. We have to be wary of giving more 
power to the Federal legislature.
  With this bill, chemical companies lobby for Federal regulations to 
preempt State legislation. None of them seem concerned that the Federal 
regulations will preempt not only aggressive regulatory States, such as 
California, but also market-oriented States, friendly States, such as 
Texas and Louisiana. So the less onerous Federal regulations may 
initially preempt overly zealous regulatory States, but when the 
Federal regulations evolve into a more onerous standard, which they 
always have, there will no longer be any State laboratories left to 
exercise freedom. Texas and Louisiana will no longer be free to host 
chemical companies as the Federal agencies ratchet higher.
  Proponents of the bill will say: Well, Texas and Louisiana can opt 
out; there is a waiver. Guess who has to approve the waiver. The head 
of the EPA. Anybody know of a recent head of the EPA friendly to 
business who will give them a waiver on a Federal regulation? It won't 
work.
  The pro-regulation business community argues that they are being 
overwhelmed by State regulations, and I don't disagree. But what can be 
done short of federalizing regulations? What about charging more in the 
States that have the costly regulations? In Vermont, they have mandated 
GMO labeling, which will cost a fortune. Either quit selling to them or 
jack up the price to make them pay for the labeling. Do you think the 
Socialists in Vermont might reconsider their laws if they have to pay 
$2 more for a Coke or for a Pepsi to pay for the absurd labeling?
  What could chemical companies do to fight overzealous regulatory 
States? What they already do--move to friendly States. If California 
inappropriately regulates your chemicals, charge them more and by all 
means, move. Get the heck out of California. Come to Kentucky. We would 
love to have your business.
  What these businesses that favor federalization of regulation fail to 
understand is that the history of Federal regulations is a dismal one. 
Well-intended, limited regulations morph into ill-willed, expansive, 
and intrusive regulations. What these businesses fail to grasp is that 
while States like California and Vermont may pass burdensome, expensive 
regulations, other States, like Texas, Tennessee, and Kentucky, are 
relative havens for business. When businesses plead for Federal 
regulations to supersede ill-conceived regulations in California and 
Vermont, they fail to understand that once regulations are centralized, 
the history of regulations in Washington is only to grow. Just witness 
regulations in banking and health care. Does anyone remember ever 
seeing a limited, reasonable Federal standard that stayed limited and 
reasonable?
  It is not new in Washington for businesses to lobby to be regulated. 
Some hospitals advocated for ObamaCare and now complain that it is 
bankrupting them. Some small banks advocated for Dodd-Frank 
regulations, and now they complain the regulators are assaulting them 
as well.
  The bill before us gives the Administrator of the EPA the power to 
decide at a later date how to and to what extent he or she will 
regulate the chemical industry. In fact, more than 100 times this bill 
leaves the discretionary authority to the EPA to make decisions on 
creating new rules; 100 times it says the Administrator of the EPA 
shall at a later date decide how to regulate. That is a blank check to 
the EPA. It is a mistake.
  Does anyone want to hazard a guess as to how many pages of 
regulations will come from this bill? The current Code of Federal 
Regulations is 237 volumes and more than 178,000 pages. If ObamaCare is 
any guide, it will be at least 20 pages of regulations for every page 
of legislation. Using the ObamaCare standard, this bill will give us 
nearly 2,000 pages of regulations. ObamaCare was about 1,000 pages. The 
regulations from ObamaCare have morphed into nearly 20,000 pages. It is 
not hard to see how this bill, which requires review of more than 
85,000 chemicals now on the market, could quickly eclipse that lofty 
total.
  No one disputes that this bill increases the power of the EPA. This 
is an important point. No one disputes that this bill increases the 
power of the EPA. No one disputes that this bill transfers power from 
the States to the Federal Government. The National Journal recognizes 
and describes this bill as granting extensive new authority to the 
EPA. If you don't think that is a problem, come to Kentucky and meet 
the 16,000 people in my State who have lost their jobs because of the 
overregulatory nature of the EPA. Ask them what they think of Hillary 
Clinton's plan to continue putting coal

[[Page S3509]]

miners out of business in my State. Ask them what they think of 
granting extensive new authority to the EPA. Look these coal miners in 
the face and tell them to trust you and that your bill will not 
increase EPA's power. Tell them to trust you.

  Is there anything in the recent history of regulatory onslaught that 
indicates a reasonable Federal standard will remain reasonable? When 
starting out, everybody says that they are going to preempt these 
terrible States like California. It is going to preempt California and 
Vermont and all of these terrible liberal States, and it will be a low 
level. Business was involved so business has made it a low and easy 
standard for chemicals. It will be ratcheted up because regulations 
never get better; they always get worse.
  I rise today to oppose granting new power to the EPA. I wish we were 
here today to do the opposite--to vote to restrain the EPA and make 
sure that they balance regulations and jobs. I wish we were here today 
to vote for the REINS Act that requires new regulations to be voted on 
by Congress before they become enforceable. Instead, this legislation 
will inevitably add hundreds of new regulations.
  I rise today to oppose this bill because it preempts the 
Constitution's intentions for the Federal Government.
  I rise today to oppose this bill because the recent history of the 
EPA is one that has shown no balance, no quarter, and no concern for 
thousands of Kentuckians they have put out of work.
  I rise today to oppose this bill because I can't in good conscience, 
as a Kentuckian, vote to make the Federal EPA stronger.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am prepared to make a unanimous consent 
request. I don't have the wording yet, but I will momentarily, so I 
will not take the floor at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, if I might make an inquiry about the order. 
Senator Whitehouse and I were about to engage in a colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a 
colloquy with Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island for up to 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I am so pleased to join my colleague, the 
Senator from Rhode Island, to discuss one of the most important issues 
facing future generations in our world, which is climate change, an 
issue that also directly affects both of our coastal and low-lying 
States.
  Many may know Delaware's status as the first State to ratify the 
Constitution, but I think few of my colleagues are aware that Delaware 
is also our country's lowest lying State. We have the lowest mean 
elevation. This status comes with certain challenges, especially with 
nearly 400 miles of exposed shoreline. That means no part of our State 
is more than 30 miles from the coast, so the good news is that no 
matter where you live in my home State, it takes less than 30 minutes 
to get to sun and sand. But the challenge is that we are particularly 
vulnerable to the increasing effects of climate change.
  In recent years, we have seen how flooding can devastate homes and 
communities up and down our State. Low-lying neighborhoods often don't 
have the resources to cope with steadily increasing flooding. A 
community such as Southbridge in Wilmington--pictured to my right--has 
been disproportionately affected.
  Environmental justice has long been a concern of mine and of Senator 
Whitehouse. We had the opportunity to visit the neighborhood of 
Southbridge. Southbridge is significantly flooded every time it rains 
more than an inch or two. With subsidence, the steady sinking of the 
land, and with sea level rise acting in combination in my State, we 
will simply see more and more challenges from severe flooding due to 
sea level rise around the globe and in my home State.
  It is not just houses and neighborhoods that are threatened by sea 
level rise; it also affects businesses and entire industries. There is 
a broad range of long-established industries and businesses in my State 
that are placed in coastal areas because of the history of our 
settlement and development. Somewhere between 15 and 25 percent of all 
the land used for heavy industry in my State will likely be inundated 
by sea level rise by the end of the century, and that doesn't even 
include all of the other productive land use for agriculture and 
tourism that contribute to jobs and revenue in my home State.
  Despite our small size and our significant exposure, we also punch 
above our weight when it comes to tackling the challenges of climate 
change. In places like Southbridge, our communities have come together 
at the State and local level to find creative solutions to cope with 
the flooding that is increasingly caused by climate change. This image 
demonstrates a plan that has been developed for the South Wilmington 
wetlands project. Senator Whitehouse may describe his visit to the 
State of Delaware in more detail, but I wanted to open simply by 
describing this community response to the flooding that we saw in the 
previous slide. We have come together as a community to plan a cleanup 
of a brownfield area to create a safe and attractive park for the 
neighborhood and to improve water quality and drainage in a way that 
also creates new ecosystems, new opportunities for recreation, and a 
new future for a community long blighted and often under water.
  That is not the only example of the many actions that have been taken 
by my home State of Delaware. Delaware also participates in RGGI, the 
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a collection of nine mid-Atlantic 
and northeastern States, including Rhode Island, that have joined 
together to implement market-based policies to reduce emissions.
  Since 2009, the participating States have reduced our carbon 
emissions by 20 percent while also experiencing stronger economic 
growth in the rest of the country, which I view as proof that fighting 
climate change and strengthening our economy are not mutually exclusive 
exchangeable goals.
  In fact, over the past 6 years, Delaware has reduced its greenhouse 
gas emissions more than any State in the entire United States. We have 
done that by growing our solar capacity 6,000 percent through multiple 
utility-scale projects and distributed solar. We have also done our 
best to adapt to climate change through community and State-led 
planning. Our Governor Jack Markell and former Delaware Secretary 
Collin O'Mara led a fantastic bottom-up, State-wide level planning 
effort to address the impacts of climate change on water, agriculture, 
ecosystems, infrastructure, and public health. In December of 2014, 
they released their climate framework for Delaware--an impressive 
statewide effort to be prepared for what is coming before it is too 
late.
  I believe Delaware is an example of how communities that are most 
vulnerable to climate change can work together across public and 
private sectors to meet the challenges of climate change head-on. That 
is why I invited my friend and colleague Senator Whitehouse. He is a 
true leader in the work to address climate change, not only in his home 
State of Rhode Island but across our country, and he has paid a visit 
to my State.
  Every week, Senator Whitehouse gives a speech on a different aspect 
of climate change, and I was proud to participate today in his weekly 
speech on the topic and thrilled to welcome him to my home State in May 
as part of his ongoing effort.
  Before I yield the floor to Senator Whitehouse, I just want to talk 
about one other stop on our statewide tour--a stop in Prime Hook, one 
of Delaware's two national wildlife refuges. The beach in Prime Hook 
over the last 60 years has receded more than 500 feet. Over the last 
decade, storms have broken through the dune line several times, 
flooding 4,000 acres of previously freshwater marsh.
  When Hurricane Sandy hit this already fragile shoreline, leaving this 
coastline battered, as we can see here, it broke through completely and 
permanently flooded and destroyed the freshwater marsh. The storm 
deepened

[[Page S3510]]

and widened the beach from 300 feet to about 1,500 feet and exacerbated 
routine flooding on local roads used by the community to access the 
beach.
  For a delicate ecosystem like this wildlife refuge, this type of 
severe weather and flooding can be devastating. Over the last 3 years, 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has worked in tandem with other 
Federal agencies, State partners, and NGOs to restore this highly 
damaged fragile ecosystem and rebuild the beach's defenses.
  It is a long story, but you can see the punch line here. As of 2016, 
construction of a newly designed, resloped, redeveloped barrier has 
been completed. Senator Whitehouse has also had the opportunity to 
visit this area. The finished project will be a saltwater marsh that I 
am confident will contribute significantly to a durable, resilient, and 
long-term ecosystem.
  This is just one example of the creative things we are doing in 
Delaware to address the impacts of climate change and sea level rise. 
In some ways I think the most important and exciting was the last stop 
in our statewide visit.
  With that I will turn it over to Senator Whitehouse to discuss in 
more detail his visit to Delaware and our last visit to the 
southernmost part of my home State.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am really grateful to the junior 
Senator from Delaware for inviting me to his home State and for joining 
me here today for my ``Time to Wake Up'' speech No. 139.
  Senator Coons and I spent a terrific day touring the Delaware shore. 
You can say whatever you want about us, but on that day we were the two 
wettest Members of the U.S. Senate. I can assure you of that.
  This is Capitol Hill Ocean Week, and Wednesday is World Oceans Day, 
so it is a good time to consider the effects of global climate change 
in our oceans. The oceans have absorbed one-third of all carbon dioxide 
produced since the industrial revolution and over 90 percent of the 
excess heat that has resulted. That means that by laws of both physics 
and chemistry, the oceans are warming, rising, and acidifying.
  Rhode Island is the Ocean State, but give Delaware credit. From the 
last report in 2013, it generated around $1 billion and over 23,000 
jobs from the ocean based in tourism, recreation, shipping, and 
fishing. Like Rhode Island, Delaware sees its sea level rise at a rate 
of 3\1/3\ millimeters per year along the Delaware shore, 13 inches up 
over the last 100 years. Delawareans care about this issue. Over a 
quarter have reported personally experiencing the effects of sea level 
rise, two-thirds worry about the effects of sea level rise, and over 75 
percent called on the State to take immediate action to combat climate 
change and sea level rise.
  I did enjoy our visit in South Wilmington, and I enjoyed the visit to 
Port Mahon, where the roads had to be built up with riffraff to protect 
against sea level rise. But the real prize and the prime reason I went 
was Port Mahon's avian connection. Among the sandpipers, ruddy 
turnstones, and gulls we saw on the shore was a bird called the rufa 
red knot. Red knots stand out from other shore birds on the beach not 
only for their colorful burnt orange plumage but also for the amazing 
story that accompanies their arrival in Delaware each spring. This is a 
story to love, and I guess you would have to say a bird to admire.
  They have only about a 20-inch wingspan at full growth, and the body 
is only about the size of a teacup, but each spring these red knots 
undertake an epic 9,000-plus mile voyage from Tierra del Fuego on the 
southern tip of South America up to the Canadian Arctic. After spending 
the summer nesting in the Arctic, they make the return trip south to 
winter in the Southern Hemisphere. This little bird has one of the 
longest animal migrations of any species on Earth.
  How does Delaware come into this? Well, the red knots fly straight 
from Brazil to Delaware Bay. As you can imagine, when they get there, 
they are hungry. They have lost as much as half their weight. We were 
told they start to ingest their own organs toward the end.
  Delaware Bay is the largest horseshoe crab spawning area in the 
world. Each May, horseshoe crabs lay millions of eggs. Nearly 2 million 
horseshoe crabs were counted in Delaware Bay in 2015, and a female can 
lay up to 90,000 eggs per spawning season. Do the math. That is a lot 
of eggs.
  The red knots come here timed just so by mother nature to bulk up on 
the nutritious horseshoe crab eggs to replenish their wasted bodies 
from the long flight to Delaware Bay and to fuel up for the 2,000 
further miles of journey to the Canadian Arctic.
  I wanted to see this before it ends. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service has listed the red knot as threatened under the Endangered 
Species Act because ``successful annual migration and breeding of red 
knots is highly dependent on the timing of departures and arrivals to 
coincide with favorable food and weather conditions in the spring and 
fall migratory stopover areas and on the Arctic breeding grounds.'' 
Climate change can bollix up that timing.
  We are already seeing that in a different subspecies of red knots 
that migrate north along the West African coast. A study published in 
the journal Science last month found that the earlier melt of Arctic 
snow is accelerating the timeline for the hatching of insects in 
spring, leading to smaller birds. The chicks, being less strong, begin 
to weaken and can't feed as successfully, and it cascades through an 
array of further difficulties.
  You actually have to love this unassuming and astounding little bird, 
but its survival relies on a cascade of nature's events to line up just 
right. Nature throws a long bomb from Tierra del Fuego, where these 
birds start, and off they go. Months later they arrive in Delaware Bay 
timed to this 450 million-year-old creature, the horseshoe crab, 
emerging from Delaware Bay to spawn. If one environmental event comes 
too early or too late or if one food source becomes too limited, the 
species could collapse.
  We got ahead of that in the 1990s when horseshoe crabs became rare 
because they were overfished. As their numbers went down, the red knot 
fell in accord. If the changes we are so recklessly putting in motion 
on the planet disturb nature's fateful planning, the red knot could pay 
a sad price.

  Some people may snicker and say: There he goes again. Now he is on 
the Senate floor talking about some stupid bird. But I say this: When 
one sees the voyage that this bird has to make, a little shore bird 
used to running along the shore making this epic voyage every year--one 
of them has been measured, because of a tag on its ankle, to have flown 
the distance from here to the moon and halfway back in its life--if one 
can't see the hand of God in that creature, I weep for their soul.
  So I thank my colleague from Delaware for his staff and the experts 
he brought along to help us learn about this. Like Rhode Island, 
Delaware has been proactive in planning for the risks that we face in a 
warmer and wetter future.
  I yield the floor to the distinguished junior Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. With that, Mr. President, I want to conclude by commenting 
that our day together began and ended with citizen science. The very 
first thing we did was to visit Delaware's national park to participate 
in a bio blitz, where volunteers from all over the country were 
identifying species and categorizing the threats to them from climate 
change. The very last thing we did was to count horseshoe crabs along 
the Cape Henlopen shore. I must say that my colleague from Rhode 
Island, even though there was driving rain and there were difficult 
conditions, was passionate and determined to do everything we could to 
contribute to the counting effort of the horseshoe crabs that day. It 
was a terrific opportunity to see a State that is engaged in planning 
and preparation and to witness one of the most remarkable migrations 
across our globe.
  I want to express my gratitude to Senator Whitehouse for his 
leadership on this issue.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. COONS. The Senator will yield for a question.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Were we, indeed, the two wettest Senators that day?
  Mr. COONS. We were, indeed, the most persistently wet Senators in the 
entire country by the end of a very wet

[[Page S3511]]

and very fulfilling day up and down the State of Delaware.
  With that, I thank my colleague from Rhode Island.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

                          ____________________