[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 17717-17730]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROTECTING VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS AND EMERGENCY RESPONDERS ACT OF 
                            2014--Continued

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     tribute to departing senators

                               Tom Coburn

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to make some remarks about 
Senator Coburn.
  Tom Coburn is one of the more remarkable Senators who have served in 
this body--certainly since I have been here. He is a man with absolute 
courage, conviction, and dedication to make this country better. He 
didn't come here to go through the job and go through the motions; he 
came here to invest his great skills and his great intellectual ability 
and to pour his drive and effort into making America a better place. It 
is very special. It is unusual. I have not seen anything like it, as I 
said, since I have been here.
  I always had great reluctance to disagree or oppose anything Tom 
offered. They were not always perfect, but basically I opposed them so 
seldom because I agreed with him time and time again. I always hated to 
vote no because I knew he had studied the issue, understood it, and was 
doing what he believed was right.
  His whole philosophy and approach to government, had it been more 
effectively followed by other Members of this body, would have led us 
to a better country. To support what he said, I think in a way, was 
supporting high ideals for America.
  I want to say I am going to miss him. People have no idea how many 
times he has stopped or altered bad legislation to make it better and 
less problematic and more principled. He believes that ours is a 
constitutionally

[[Page 17718]]

limited government. He didn't just believe that, he acted on it and has 
acted on it consistently.
  I understand, and I have no doubt of this--we don't need to run a 
test--but I understand and have no doubt that he has offered more 
amendments since I have been in the Senate than any other Senator. They 
have been amendments to stop waste, fraud, and abuse, to make the 
government more efficient, leaner, to consolidate multiple programs 
that should be consolidated for efficiency.
  He has worked across the aisle on a host of issues. He has sought 
bipartisan support for matters that are small and large. It is 
remarkable. I have to say that we are going to lose someone who is of 
great value. He would easily have been reelected had he run again.
  I remember him saying one time--and this is his philosophy--if you 
want to be reelected, don't worry about being reelected, just do the 
right thing, and you won't have any difficulties. He never had any 
difficulties in his election, because people trusted him. They knew 
every day, night and day, long hours, whatever, he was working to 
advance the common interest of our country. They trusted that he was 
not seduced, bought out, compromised by the powers that be in 
Washington, DC, and he remained true to those who sent him here.
  I would say this: Part of the strength he has--as a matter of fact, 
maybe the greatest part of his strength he has is his faith. He is 
intelligent, sophisticated, knowledgeable, a scientist, a doctor, but a 
man of simple Christian faith which impacts his life as much as anybody 
in this body. He understands the true meaning of life, and he gives 
himself to others in a most remarkable way.
  Thank you and colleagues for the opportunity for me to share these 
remarks. We are going to miss our friend Tom Coburn, who is going to 
object to those bills that require a lot of effort to make them better 
or stop some that are so bad they cannot be passed. A lot of us are 
going to have to pick up the slack.
  Maybe Tom would say, ``What are you doing down here, Jeff, wasting 
time talking about me when you ought to be studying this bill and 
finding some of the bogus spending that is in it? You should be 
spending your time fixing it.''
  But every now and then I think we should stop and recognize an 
extraordinary life and an extraordinary Senator.
  I wanted to share these remarks.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Clay Hunt SAV Act

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, Mr. Clay Hunt is a marine veteran who 
committed suicide in March of 2011 at the age of 28. Clay enlisted in 
the Marine Corps in May of 2005 and deployed to the Al Anbar Province 
near Fallujah in January of 2007. He was shot in the wrist by a 
sniper's bullet that barely missed his head, and it earned him the 
Purple Heart.
  Clay recuperated at Twentynine Palms, CA, and then graduated from 
Marine Corps scout sniper school in March of 2008, and he was 
redeployed in southern Afghanistan a few weeks later. His unit returned 
to the United States in late October 2008 and he was honorably 
discharged from the marines in April 2009.
  After he returned home, Clay suffered from post-traumatic stress 
disorder, PTSD. He struggled for many years and he struggled with 
inadequate care from his local VA hospital before taking his own life.
  The Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention Act passed the House of 
Representatives a little while ago this week. I believe this is an 
important piece of legislation. I serve on the Senate Veterans' Affairs 
Committee and we had testimony related to suicide prevention, suicide 
among our veterans, a few weeks back, and it is so clear in Kansas and 
across the country that many veterans and their families deserve 
something much more than we are able to provide--than we are providing 
now--and this legislation which will help in that regard deserves swift 
passage by the U.S. Senate.
  This bill, the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention Act, would be 
instrumental in developing a VA system capable of offering first-class, 
first-rate mental health care services as well as utilizing the 
expertise of outside organizations to provide support for those 
struggling with the invisible wounds of service.
  The legislation would require third parties to conduct an annual 
evaluation of suicide prevention programs within the Department of 
Veterans Affairs and within the Department of Defense. It would also 
provide for a new Web site that would offer veterans information 
regarding available mental health care services, and it would create a 
joint pilot loan repayment program for VA psychiatrists. There is a 
tremendous shortage of VA professionals that this would help alleviate, 
and it will improve the exchange of training, best practices, and other 
resources among the VA veterans service organizations and not-for-
profit mental health organizations to enhance the cooperation of their 
efforts in suicide prevention.
  During that Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing on November 19, last 
month, we were honored to hear Clay's story from his mom, Susan Selke. 
Susan shared her son's story of reliving the traumatic experiences of 
war and his disappointment when the VA failed to offer him the care he 
needed to treat his stress disorder.
  In fact, it was one of the most compelling--again, I have served on 
the Veterans' Affairs Committee since I came to Congress, and this 
mother's testimony was one of the most important pieces of information 
I have heard from a witness during the committee hearing. What she 
indicated was that in her belief--and she indicated that she believed 
her son thought this as well--that it was the VA bureaucracy, the 
inability, the unwillingness, the falling through the cracks, the 
culture that we have heard described in the Department of Veterans 
Affairs that was the straw that broke the camel's back and that caused 
her son to commit suicide.
  We have ranted, we have raved, we highlighted, we pointed out, we 
have discussed the VA and its problems, its bureaucracy, its culture, 
its failure of leadership, its service to the VA as compared to its 
service to veterans many times over many years. We often bemoan 
bureaucracy among all Federal agencies, but it is especially important 
at the Department of Veterans Affairs, because while it is easy to talk 
about the bureaucracy, the paperwork, the shuffling, the falling 
through the cracks, this mother's testimony about the death of her son 
indicated that it is not just about bureaucracy, it is not just about 
paperwork, it is not just about a culture. Those circumstances 
contributed to the death of a human being. In this case it contributed 
to the death of one who served our country nobly.
  So we can bemoan the bureaucracy, but we need to remember that it is 
that circumstance that causes the loss of life. Suicide is something 
that needs to be addressed. We need to have a concerted effort, and 
legislation that is now pending before the Senate that needs to be 
passed before this Senate concludes is one step we can take to make 
certain there are less circumstances in which a soldier or a veteran 
commits suicide.
  I cannot imagine the heartache, the difficulty, the challenge, that 
comes from a mom who comes to DC to testify about the suicide death of 
her son. I don't know how to put myself in that position, but I know it 
has to be a tremendously difficult, traumatic experience. The reason 
she must do that is because she wants to make certain that other sons 
of other parents of other mothers have a different experience than the 
one she, her family, and her son, experienced.
  It is clear we have a problem. It is critical that the VA follow 
through on its commitment and its responsibilities to our Nation's 
veterans. It is critical

[[Page 17719]]

that they must follow through to those veterans who are just returning 
home, those who have been home a long time, and to their families who 
need to have the love and support and care of the VA and the American 
people. We have to keep working to find solutions to the issues of 
mental health our service men and women and veterans now face, and we 
must hold the VA accountable for their responsibilities when it comes 
to providing for the needs of those veterans. And that care and 
treatment must be provided in a timely, high quality, and in a 
specialized way that meets the needs of each individual veteran and 
their family.
  My presence on the Senate floor this evening is to highlight the 
importance of the message of the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention Act, to 
pay honor and tribute to Clay Hunt and to his family, and to the 
hundreds of individuals and families across the country who have faced 
similar circumstances, and call us to the point that we recognize that 
steps taken today can make certain there are no more Clay Hunts, no 
more mothers who face the circumstance of the loss of their son, and 
that America lives up to its commitment to those we have called to 
duty.
  I urge my colleagues to make certain that this legislation passes the 
U.S. Senate before we recess for this holiday period.
  Mr. President, thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. I 
yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Tribute to Departing Senators

                            Jay Rockefeller

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to share a few remarks as we mark 
the end of the long tenure of Senator Jay Rockefeller and his service 
to his country and to the Senate. He has served in the Senate for 30 
years. He served two terms as Governor of West Virginia, and served as 
Secretary of State, and in the House of Delegates.
  He came to the State of West Virginia as a young VISTA volunteer. I 
have heard him tell the story about that, how he really wanted to 
participate and reach out and help others. He came to West Virginia as 
a young man and stayed. He worked with people in a small mining 
community. His heart was right to try to be helpful. He came from a 
prestigious family, but he wanted to help others.
  He has been a remarkable Member of the Senate for now 30 years. He 
has a brilliant mind, capable of grasping all sorts of thoughts, but he 
also has the ability to delight in little things. One of those is 
sports. He has a tremendous capacity to have in that brain of his 
sports trivia. He likes the Atlanta Braves. He knows Southeastern 
Conference football. I have been pleased to be able to chat with him on 
occasion on the floor.
  It just goes to show a lot of times people don't realize that we get 
along pretty well in this body personally. We may disagree on issues, 
but we care about one another. Jay Rockefeller has always been nice to 
me. He has always been a friend. He has always been courteous. He has 
always been collegial to me, and I have appreciated that over the 
years. So I wish to thank him for his service to his country, his 
commitment to others, and I wish him Godspeed in his further endeavors.
  I thank the Chair, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Saxby Chambliss

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to share a few thoughts about the 
service in the Senate of our good friend and colleague Saxby Chambliss.
  Saxby is one of the best liked and most respected Senators in this 
body. Every Member knows him. Every Member likes him. Every Member 
respects him. I truly share that view. And on matters particularly 
related to national security, intelligence issues, and terrorism, I 
consistently want to know what Saxby has to say about it.
  He has done a whole lot of things in this Senate. He has been a 
participant and a contributor on many issues. He worked really hard to 
try to create a bipartisan solution to our debt crisis. That didn't 
quite develop, but it was a positive part of the discussion this Senate 
went through.
  What I really want to say is that as Chairman or Vice Chairman of the 
Senate Intelligence Committee, and having been a longtime Member of the 
House Intelligence Committee, and here in the Senate, he has become the 
go-to person with regard to the sensitive issues relating to the 
security of our country. I consistently have looked to him because I 
trust his judgment, trust his integrity, and trust his wisdom to help 
sort through all the political news articles and debates and hot 
issues, and to distill down to the bottom of what is important, what we 
should be focused on, and what the right thing is for America.
  Truly, he has been a remarkable Senator. We are going to miss Saxby. 
I am going to miss Saxby, as so many of us will. He is the son of an 
Episcopalian minister. He is a man of faith.
  He has a delightful wife, Julianne. My wife is a good judge of 
character and she thinks Julianne hung the Moon, and that is so true. 
They are a great family and great partners.
  Saxby has given so much to the Senate. Georgia has produced some 
great Senators, particularly Senators known for their commitment to 
national security and the defense of America: Richard Russell, for whom 
the Russell Senate Office Building is named; Sam Nunn, who was so long 
a leader in the Congress with regard to national defense.
  Saxby Chambliss is in that category. That is the kind of Senator he 
has been--from defending America to helping his colleagues sift through 
difficult issues and make good, wise decisions. It has been a great 
pleasure for me to serve with him. I wish him every success in his 
future endeavors and look forward to seeing him back in this area many 
times.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Mark Begich

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would also just say that we will be 
losing a good friend, Mark Begich. Mark and I served on the Armed 
Services Committee together for a number of years. We were very active. 
I was Ranking Member and he was Chairman of the Armed Services 
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, dealing with missile defense, which 
Alaska was deeply involved with as a state.
  Mark was an expert on those issues. We dealt with nuclear issues and 
outer space and satellite issues. That was a particularly good time 
together. I believe every committee--every decision we reached--was a 
bipartisan decision that came out of committee. We supported the 
Subcommittee report that was made a part of the Armed Services bill and 
then became law. For the most part I think not too many changes were 
made in it.
  I think a lot of people may not appreciate that Senators do get 
along. We do work together on issues important to the country, such as 
space and military space necessities that are so valuable to our men 
and women as they are in harm's way, to be able to produce a missile 
defense system that ensures that this country is not vulnerable to 
attack by a missile from an adversary.
  That system is up, standing, and operating today. It was great to 
work with Mark in establishing it. He is a delightful person to work 
with, always with a positive attitude. I know he will

[[Page 17720]]

be successful in whatever future endeavors he undertakes. He was mayor 
of Anchorage. Anybody who has been a mayor has learned some things and 
has had to deal with constituents face-to-face. He loved actually 
meeting his constituents and talking with them.
  I wish Mark every success in his future endeavors and would like to 
express my appreciation to him for the courtesies he has shown me and 
the effort we made together to improve the defense of the United 
States.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Hours of Service Regulations

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, at this time of year, Thanksgiving and 
the holidays that are upcoming, a lot of Americans are on our roads. A 
lot of us know that Americans are on the roads because my colleagues 
and I travel using the highways of our States so frequently.
  We know as parents, as family members, that in the back of our minds 
when a son or daughter is driving, there is a tiny bit of apprehension 
and anxiety about safety. It is safety not only concerning people on 
our roads but also on our railways. As a member of the commerce 
committee, where the Presiding Officer served, I know he has young 
children and he probably has the same apprehensions and anxieties that 
all of us share when our family members are driving, particularly late 
at night, early in the morning, hours when weariness, fatigue, and 
tiredness are one of the main enemies--particularly when the weather is 
bad.
  The omnibus funding measure, soon to be under debate, has many good 
provisions, but it also has a provision that is antithetical and deeply 
destructive to the principle of road safety because it affects truck 
drivers who are on the roads for long periods of time. I am referring 
to section 133 of division K, one paragraph. I am here to talk about 
it, to ask that my colleagues oppose it. If there is any way to strip 
it from the bill, I urge that it be done. It is a provision that is 
virtually incomprehensible to the average American on the roads or in 
their homes as to what it means and what its ramifications are and what 
its consequences may be to their safety and the safety of others in 
their families on the road.
  The fact is that nearly 4,000 people who are killed each year in 
truck crashes and the nearly 100,000 each year who are injured show the 
toll of fatigue and weariness of our truck drivers.
  According to NHTSA, truck crash injuries in fact increased by 40 
percent between 2009 to 2012. We all have seen the consequences of 
fatigue on the roads when we drive--the truck driver who may pull his 
rig in front of us or slide over into our side of the road, not because 
he is not well trained, experienced, able. In fact, the vast majority 
of truck drivers are experienced and able and well trained and 
extraordinarily prudent in the way they drive.
  But fatigue is an enemy to them as it is to all of us who drive. Many 
of the headlines we have seen recently have concerned hours of service 
regulations governing truck drivers, as many truck crashes involve 
tired truck drivers. There are rules that have been enacted by the 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, rules that have been 
implemented to curb the number of fatigued truck drivers on our roads, 
implemented after years of rulemaking and analysis and study and even 
litigation. They are fact-based rules. They are supported by science. 
They are rules that move American roads and drivers in the right 
direction, truly, literally on the right path.
  I am not the only one who supports these rules. They are supported by 
the Secretary of Transportation. Secretary Foxx is to be commended for 
his steadfast, strong, courageous defense of these rules. His integrity 
and intellect in support of these rules I greatly appreciate. But he is 
not alone any more than I am alone. The folks who are most adamant and 
passionate about it are the truck drivers themselves.
  The Teamsters and the United Transportation Union, they have inspired 
me to be as passionate and steadfast as I am on these rules. They are 
not alone either. Law enforcement, the International Association of 
Chiefs of Police, the National Troopers Coalition, the National 
Sheriffs' Association, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, and the 
Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association all support these rules.
  They are also supported by consumer and public health groups and 
safety groups such as Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Citizens 
for Reliable and Safe Highways, the Consumer Federation of America, the 
American Public Health Association, the John Lindsay Foundation, the 
Truck Safety Coalition, KidsAndCars.org, the Trauma Foundation, and 
Public Citizen. These are the preeminent public and safety consumer 
advocacy groups in this country. They all support these rules.
  Tragically and unfortunately, there are organizations representing 
victims such as Parents Against Tired Truckers and Roadsafe America 
which also have been inspired to support these rules. I say tragically 
and unfortunately, because none of us welcome the fact that there are 
victims of crashes resulting from tired truckers. Most regretful are 
the truckers themselves, which is why they are supporting these rules. 
But the families and loved ones of victims of these crashes support the 
rules, and even many trucking companies like those represented by the 
Trucking Alliance support these rules.
  The fact is there is good reason for the rules and there is good 
reason to strip the bill of a provision that negates, in effect, 
undercuts, and eviscerates these rules, section 133 of Division K. 
There is good reason. The 2005 study conducted by the Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration demonstrated that before the current 
rules were implemented, 65 percent of drivers reported feeling drowsy 
while driving and 48 percent admitted to falling asleep while driving 
at some point the previous year.
  But under the current rules, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration says that it will save 19 lives, prevent about 1,400 
crashes, 560 injuries each year, see an estimated $280 million in 
savings from fewer large truck crashes, and see $470 million in savings 
from improved driver health.
  These are dry, abstract statistics, but they measure compelling 
losses in human lives and in dollars.
  Unfortunately, the folks who want to stop these rules have found a 
home in the omnibus appropriations bill that may be coming over from 
the House later today. In addition, while the rules are blocked, the 
language in the House bill would also require that this issue be 
studied further.
  The rules have been studied a lot. If there is a need for further 
study, fine. I am completely on board with study and factfinding. But 
in the meantime, let's keep the rules as they are, as prescribed by the 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. They are in the business 
of safety. They have said these rules are necessary. Let's keep the 
rules implemented, but we can study them. If we are going to make any 
changes, it should be done with proper analysis and debate--not in a 
spending bill. It ought to be in the committee with jurisdiction, the 
commerce committee, where I serve.
  That is why in late July my subcommittee held a hearing on truck 
safety and this issue featured prominently. We gave everyone a chance 
to testify, to debate all points of view. Until then, the only 
discussion was in the context of appropriations and spending bills, not 
in the context of real policy.
  The hearing I held highlighted some real issues. First, with these 
changes, drivers will be able to drive nearly 80 hours a week. In other 
words, if this provision is adopted, if the rules are rolled back, 
drivers will be able to drive nearly 80 hours a week and hundreds more 
a year.
  It is more likely that trucking companies will push their drivers to 
drive

[[Page 17721]]

the maximum limit, which is about twice the average American workweek. 
That is exactly what the rules are designed to prevent, truck drivers 
being forced to work too many hours, getting exhausted, and then 
endangering themselves and other drivers on the road.
  All we are trying to do with the rules is take tired truckers off the 
roads--not tell them when they must sleep or what they must do while 
they are off the roads. It is about taking tired trucker drivers off 
the road. The changes in the omnibus would enable drivers to drive 
nearly 80 hours a week and hundreds more hours a year and would really 
impede truck drivers' resting, which they should be doing instead of 
driving more.
  The rules implemented by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration were the result of compromise. To roll them back further 
undermines that compromise. If anything, we ought to be instituting 
greater safeguards.
  If there is factfinding that justifies stronger precaution and 
protection, we welcome that study. But in the meantime, allow the rules 
to work and protect drivers, truck drivers and other drivers on the 
road. Americans are in favor of these rules. They are in favor of truck 
safety.
  Polling data released in October shows why so many Americans are 
concerned about allowing drivers to be on the roads while they are 
fatigued. Americans simply don't want these large trucks, which in many 
respects operate like missiles zooming down the road. A missile out of 
control can do huge, humongous, enduring damage to life and limb and to 
the futures of people whose lives may be transformed by a fatal or 
serious crash.
  Let's make sure we have a real conversation about this issue in the 
commerce committee. Let's make sure we do the factfinding and have the 
rules in place while that factfinding takes place. Let's make sure that 
Americans are protected against weary and tired truckdrivers. Let's 
give them the same attention and care as we would want for our families 
during this season, on the roads, while they are driving late at night, 
maybe in bad weather, because there are going to be storms as there 
are, inevitably, in December, January, and February.
  But every day, every season, these rules deserve to be in place. That 
is why this provision, which would roll back those rules--making 
changes endangering the lives of ordinary Americans on the road--is so 
antithetical to safety and such an anathema to the values of saving and 
preserving life and increasing the safety of our drivers on the road.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Donnelly). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Clay Hunt SAV Act

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I wish to inform my colleagues, 
although the hour is late, that the Clay Hunt bill, H.R. 5059, has been 
cleared on the Democratic side and I hope we will have unanimous 
consent to move it tomorrow in the session that we have on Friday.
  This bill is of tremendous importance to not only me as a member of 
the Veterans' Affairs Committee and my colleagues--many of them 
including, I believe, Senator McCain, who introduced an updated and 
improved version of the Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act, 
but also to the families who have been affected, I want to say in 
particular to Susan Selke, who testified before the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee--and I was there for her testimony, speaking on behalf of 
herself and her husband, Richard, as the mother of Clay Hunt, a marine 
combat victim who died by suicide in March of 2011 at the age of 28.
  I am not going to speak at length about the reasons of why we need 
more assistance and support to prevent more wonderful young men and 
women like Clay Hunt, who served and sacrificed for our Nation, the 
kind of resources and support that are necessary to prevent them from 
becoming victims at this time of tragic circumstances.
  We owe it to Susan Selke, Clay Hunt's mom, and all the families who 
lose loved ones to suicide, to do better, to do more, and do it now.
  The reforms and programs directed by this legislation hopefully will 
enable the VA to better serve and treat veterans suffering from the 
hidden or invisible injuries of war, and the mental health and other 
conditions that ought to be addressed to save young men and women such 
as Clay Hunt.
  I will seek to move this bill tomorrow by unanimous consent, and I 
hope my colleagues will enable me to do so.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the bill we are on--the 
National Defense Authorization Act--by taking a look at the condition 
of the world today. This is an important time to do it, as we enter the 
end of this year and begin to look forward to the new year. We should 
take a moment to take a snapshot of the world and the threats that 
exist around us and the complexities in the world because I think they 
are directly on point as to what our military capabilities are going to 
need to be in the 21st century.
  I note that the tendencies have often been on a number of occasions, 
even in my lifetime, where we have tried to take, for lack of a better 
term, what is known as a peace dividend--the end of the Cold War, for 
example, and then again after the events of 9/11--it is the idea that 
somehow the threats around the world and the challenges we face have 
somehow ebbed and it is time to nation build at home. I am always in 
favor of nation building at home. The problem is that today, now, in 
the 21st century more than ever, there is no such thing as a remote 
problem. There is no such thing as any issue that is of major 
importance abroad that doesn't somehow impact us here at home. This has 
always been true, but it has never been more true than it is today 
because of the global nature of our economy.
  As we look around the world--and I want to take a brief moment to go 
over some of the parts of the world--we start to see what the need for 
American leadership is and the need for a strong national defense 
capability on the part of the United States and how important it is in 
this new global economy.
  Let's begin by looking at the Middle East, the most troubled region 
of the world, and that has been true for a very long time. We begin by 
talking about the negotiations that are going on with Iran. Look, I 
would hope--we all do, I think--to wake up one day to the news that 
Iran has decided to walk away from sponsoring terrorism, that Iran has 
walked away from its desire to blow up Israel, that Iran has rejected 
the human rights violations it commits against its own people, and that 
they have abandoned their nuclear ambitions. We would all love to see 
that happen. That is the ideal outcome. It is also, frankly, the least 
likely.
  The truth is, while we shouldn't root against the negotiations that 
are going on with Iran, we shouldn't be naive enough to believe they 
have a serious chance at success, and I say this for a couple of very 
different but simple reasons.
  The first is because I think Iran looks at what has happened with 
North Korea--a country that barely has an economy; it is not even a 
country in the sense we think of, having a government. It is really an 
area of land run by a criminal syndicate. Iran has seen how North 
Korea, because it has a nuclear weapon, has been able to be immune to 
international pressures, up to a certain point. Then Iran looks to 
Libya and it looks to Iraq and it says: Look what happens to people who 
don't have nuclear weapons. So I am convinced the Supreme Leader wants 
that

[[Page 17722]]

nuclear capability. Whether he will ever actually build the weapon--it 
may not be something they have decided yet, but the ability to build 
that weapon--I have no doubt that is what they want.
  I have no doubt--and I believe the administration knows this to be 
true--that they have gone into these negotiations with a very clear 
objective; that is, we want you, negotiator, to get rid of as many 
sanctions as possible without agreeing to any irreversible concessions.
  It is an interesting plan because their idea is to get rid of the 
sanctions, thinking they will do what they need to do in the short 
term--whatever that may be, as long as they are not irreversible--and 
at some point in the future they will restart the weapons program. It 
is going to be easier for Iran to restart the weapons program than it 
is going to be for the United States and the nations of the world to 
reimpose sanctions. So I think they have figured that out, and that is 
what their mandate has been. But even that has its limits because when 
we look to these negotiators--and there is a history of this, when we 
look to these negotiators--there have been times in the past when 
Iranian negotiators might have agreed to something at the table, but 
then they have to come back and pull the offer because when they take 
it to the Supreme Leader, he says no.
  We have to understand that the Supreme Leader is an isolated 
individual. This is not a person who travels the world or interacts 
with other national leaders of other nations. This is a person who is 
an ideologue, a religious fanatic. And I don't care what the 
negotiators agree to or what the President of Iran agrees to, 
ultimately it is the Supreme Leader's decision. I hate to say this, but 
they are not going to agree to any sort of deal that is good for the 
national security of the United States. I believe that to be true, and 
we need to be prepared for that.
  I hope one of the first items we take up in this Chamber in the new 
year, in the new Congress, will be a bill to require congressional 
authorization for any deal, and I think we should also consider putting 
in place sanctions for the day when that deal fails.
  In the meantime, as we talk about those negotiations that are going 
on--and Iran has already acquired a concession on the part of the West 
that they can leave in place some level of the infrastructure they need 
to enrich uranium and reprocess plutonium--they are still expanding 
their missile capability, they are still sponsoring terrorism all over 
the world, they are still deeply embedded and aligned with Shia 
militias in Iraq who pose a danger to the United States--and I will 
touch more upon that in a moment--and they still have plans to one day 
destroy Israel. So we should not be naive about the situation with 
Iran, and I hope in the new year more clarity will come to that.
  The second issue that directly touches upon our national security is 
the conflict between Iraq and Syria with regard to ISIL and the speed 
by which they have spread throughout two countries. Their goals are 
very simple. The goal of ISIL is to establish an Islamic caliphate that 
stretches from Europe--literally from Spain all the way through the 
Middle East, into India and Afghanistan, and in through north Africa. 
That is their very clear goal. They have said so. That is their plan, 
and it began in Syria, and it is spreading to Iraq. They made some 
pretty impressive gains before they started getting hit from the air. 
But even with that, they are the best funded and the best armed 
terrorist organization in modern history.
  We already are beginning to see the spread of ISIL. One place to keep 
an eye on is Libya. They control an entire province in Libya. An 
affiliate of theirs, a group who has pledged allegiance to them, now 
controls an entire province in Libya, and here is what is dangerous 
about that. For a group such as this to prosper and grow, they need an 
ungoverned space. They need a piece of territory where no one is 
shooting at them, where no one is protesting their presence and they 
have no one to fight against them. That is why al Qaeda was able to 
grow so fast in Afghanistan--because the Taliban gave them that 
ungoverned space. That is why ISIL was able to grow so quickly out of 
Syria and into Iraq--because they were able to carve out an ungoverned 
space where the Syrian Government wasn't.
  In Libya they have no one to fight. There is no functional government 
right now. There are no rival rebel groups to shoot at them. And they 
are going to use that ungoverned space to grow their capability. In 
fact, it would not surprise me, unfortunately, if in a few months, 
maybe a year, the hub of ISIL's activities is located largely in that 
province of Libya and beyond.
  By the way, ISIL's presence isn't just a threat to Iraq and Syria; 
their immediate threat as well is to the Kingdom of Jordan, a critical 
U.S. ally. And if they are a threat to Jordan, they are a threat to 
Israel and, ultimately, to Saudi Arabia. They are a threat to Turkey 
already. They are a threat to Lebanon, and, as I said, they are present 
in north Africa as we speak. This is a very dangerous development, and 
it must be dealt with seriously.
  We also can't anticipate the alliances that ISIL might make. We have 
to understand what is happening. As they make these gains--or supposed 
gains--they have also become very good at propaganda. They are 
convincing young, radicalized individuals--including here in the United 
States--that they are the preeminent jihadist group on the planet, that 
they are the most successful jihadist group on the planet, that they 
will inevitably succeed, and that they are an unsurmountable force. 
They are convincing people to abandon other groups and join them. They 
are convincing donors to stop giving money to other groups and give to 
them. We don't know what this is going to develop into, but we can 
foresee in the very near future where other groups begin to align 
themselves with them just to remain relevant.
  By the way, as a side note, there is an additional danger to ISIL's 
spread, and that is that the other jihadist groups in the world, who 
are now losing donors and losing recruits, are now feeling an urgency 
to go out and carry out some spectacular attack, such as here in the 
homeland against American interests or air travel somewhere. They now 
have an interest in carrying out a spectacular attack because they need 
to do something to reattract donors and reattract members.
  But back to my original point. The danger is that these new groups, 
in order to remain relevant and not lose their fighters, may decide 
they are going to pledge their allegiance to ISIL. The host of groups 
already exploring that are dangerous--the Taliban in Afghanistan, the 
Taliban in Pakistan, the Haqqani Network that is in both Afghanistan 
and Pakistan, and there are other groups in north Africa as well that 
at least nominally have pledged some level of allegiance and support 
for what ISIL is doing. We need to keep an eye on this threat because a 
year ago, if I had stood on this floor and said we need to take ISIL 
seriously, no one would have known what I was talking about. That is 
how quickly this threat has spread, and we have no idea what it can 
morph into in the next few years, not to mention the next few months.
  There is one additional point I wish to make. The city of Mosul has a 
university with a significant research capability, and one thing for us 
to be very cautious about is that ISIL is not using that university and 
its research capabilities to develop rockets or, God forbid, chemical 
weapons or even a dirty bomb. That is something to keep an eye on in 
the months and weeks to come. That is another example of the complex 
national security threats our Nation faces.
  Our ally Israel--their struggles and their challenges are well 
documented. It begins with Iran. We have talked about the fact that 
single greatest threat facing Israel today is the prospect of a nuclear 
Iran and what it would mean to Israel's security in the long term. They 
face a very difficult challenge with the Palestinian Authority.
  There was a poll I read about this morning that talked about a large 
majority of people--Palestinians--who believe it is morally right to 
kill Israelis,

[[Page 17723]]

to kill Jews. I am not saying that I believe all Palestinians think 
that, but it bears noting what that poll found. It should not surprise 
us when the educational institutions of the Palestinian Authority--not 
to mention what is being taught in Gaza--teaches people that not only 
is it right, it is heroic to kill Jews and to be an anti-Semite.
  Then they are being pressured, including by this administration--
Israel is--to enter into a peace agreement with these individuals, with 
those so-called leaders. How can you enter into a peace agreement with 
people who want to destroy you? How could you possibly enter into a 
peace agreement with an organization that wants to eradicate you? What 
are you going to negotiate--the terms of your destruction?
  I don't know of any nation on Earth that wants peace more than Israel 
does. What do they have to gain from this constant conflict? How can 
you have peace with an organization, with a group that is committed to 
their destruction?
  Instead of saying: Israel, your No. 1 problem right now is--we know 
what it is--the threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon, this 
administration and some political leaders even in this Chamber believe 
we should be pressuring them that their No. 1 objective should be 
entering into some sort of peace agreement with an organization that 
wants to destroy them, that in some quarters won't even recognize their 
right to exist, an organization that harbors individuals who deny that 
Jews were ever present on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, which is 
absurd. Of course, I would just encourage them to do a little 
archeological research to confirm the longstanding Jewish presence in 
the region.
  Suffice it to say that Israel is our strongest ally in the region. It 
is everything we wish the Middle East was--a prosperous, free 
enterprise economy, a stable democracy with a vibrant political 
process, and a loyal friend to the United States in international 
forums. I wish there were more countries in the world like that. We 
should do everything we can to support Israel and stop putting pressure 
on them because every time we put pressure on them on these things, we 
create daylight between the United States and Israel, we imperil their 
security, and we encourage their enemies to become even more 
aggressive.
  The last point I will make about Israel: Let there be no doubt that 
there is a global effort to delegitimize their right to exist as a 
Jewish state. It has infiltrated throughout Europe, and we are starting 
to see it rear its ugly head in academia here in the United States. We 
should not let that stand. We should speak out against it and condemn 
it for what it is.
  As if the Middle East were not complicated enough, we turn our focus 
to Europe and the threat Russia now poses. Interestingly enough, a year 
and a half ago, Mitt Romney, the former Governor of Massachusetts, the 
Republican Presidential nominee, said that Russia was our most serious 
geopolitical threat in the short term. He was universally mocked by 
elitists and the press, even by some here in Washington--many here in 
Washington. It turns out he was right, as were many of us who were 
saying the same thing.
  The truth is that Vladimir Putin many years ago concluded that the 
United States was a threat to Russia, many years ago concluded that he 
wanted Russia to be reestablished as a world power and that the only 
way he could achieve that was by confronting the United States and 
being seen as a counterbalance to the United States on the global 
stage, and we see that in place after place. In international forums, 
when it comes to Syria, on issue after issue Russia is against us 
because Putin believes it gives them relevancy on the global stage.
  But there is a second issue and do not take this lightly. We don't 
spend all day obsessed about Russia. We don't spend all night thinking 
the Russians are going to invade us. But they do. There are leaders in 
the Russian Government who believe the United States wants to get into 
a military conflict with them, and they increasingly believe that now 
more than ever. We can see it in the military moves they are making. 
These are not just provocations. This is an all-out change to their 
defense posturing, to their defense theory, a defense theory that is 
increasingly looking like a Cold War one, a defense theory that is 
increasingly looking like they need to have the ability to prevent a 
U.S. first strike or to somehow be able to react to a U.S. first 
strike.
  I know for us it sounds absurd that the United States would ever 
launch a nuclear attack against Russia. But there are Russian leaders 
at very high levels that believe that is plausible, and we are seeing 
it rear its head in every part of the world. Not a day goes by that 
there is not a report of a Russian intrusion here or a submarine 
appearing somewhere or an airplane--Russian bombers that have been 
intercepted by NATO or even the United States. These are not just 
provocations. They are muscle flexing.
  This is a change in their defense theory, and it is a very dangerous 
change, not to mention the fact that I believe evidence now exists that 
Russia is in violation of multiple treaties they have signed with the 
United States, and there needs to be consequences for that.
  Then, of course, as part of that strategy they believe they need 
strategic depth, which means they need all the countries that border 
them, especially the former Soviet Republics, to be in their camp. They 
don't want anyone near them turning toward the West. The best example 
of that is what is happening in Ukraine.
  What is happening in Ukraine is easy to understand. As Ukraine turned 
westward, Russia said that was unacceptable; they invaded Crimea and 
took it, and they are now engaged openly in a conflict with Ukraine 
that is, by the way, an outrageous one.
  First of all, Russian troops have entered Ukrainian territory. Maybe 
they were disguised as something else, but Russian troops have made 
incursions into Ukraine territory and carried out combat operations 
against the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
  The Russians are supplying the Ukrainians with weapons and armored 
vehicles.
  They will claim: No; these armored vehicles are armored vehicles we 
seized, and they are clever about the armored vehicles they supply them 
with. They are only supplying them with armored vehicles that look like 
the ones the Ukrainians already have in their current stockpiles. But 
they are arming, equipping, and training Ukrainian separatists, and 
their goal is to achieve one of two things:
  Their first objective, plan A, is to force Ukraine, because of the 
pressure they are putting on them through these separatists, because of 
the economic levers they hold on a very fragile Ukrainian economy 
through energy and exports and so forth--their first objective is to 
force Ukraine into a federation system of government; basically, a 
system of government that gives those eastern provinces and areas more 
autonomy because that would keep the country sufficiently divided so it 
can never turn toward Europe and the West.
  If that doesn't work, however, then plan B that they are perfectly 
comfortable with is to freeze the status quo, to basically freeze the 
current conflict as the status quo for the long term. After the next 15 
or 20 years, there will be armed and trained separatists, supported by 
Russia, carrying out combat operations against the Ukrainian Government 
in the eastern parts of the country.
  Plan A is the federation; plan B is to freeze the status of the 
current conflict. That is the reality we are facing.
  What is interesting is here is what Russia is banking on. They are 
banking on the sanctions which have been imposed will not be sustained; 
that eventually, after a couple of years, Europe will say: OK. It is 
time to accept what has happened and move on and that sanctions will be 
lifted. In fact, that is what Putin is probably telling his inner 
circle and the people around him: Don't worry. We are going to get 
through this. These sanctions will eventually be lifted off of us, and 
everything will be back to normal.

[[Page 17724]]

  But those sanctions are hurting right now. I would hope those 
sanctions don't fall apart. I would hope the European nations 
understand what a direct threat this poses to them if Russia could just 
invade a country and take it over. But time will tell.
  I think a strong American leadership is critical. I think a 
reinvigoration of NATO is critical. That is why it is so important that 
we focus on our defense capability.
  But that is Putin telling everyone around him: Don't worry about 
these sanctions. They are going to be gone in a while. We will get 
through this.
  Interestingly, to give some insight into Putin, the inner circle 
around him, the elites who are closest to him, they are being shielded 
from the impact of these sanctions to a certain point. In fact, one of 
the people, Igor Sechin, who was specifically sanctioned by the 
sanctions that were passed here and in Europe--he actually convinced 
Putin to indict an energy rival of his, take his property and his 
assets, and give it to Igor Sechin as compensation. That is how cynical 
this has become.
  So the elites that surround and are closest to Putin, they are being 
protected by the impact of the sanctions. Everybody else is paying a 
terrible price, not the least of which are the people.
  I also think there is clear evidence that Putin is increasingly 
isolated in terms of whom he listens to, whom he takes advice from, and 
whom he consults with, and it is going to have a devastating impact on 
Russia. Next year their economy is predicted to contract. Yet despite 
this--just to give a true indication of where Russia is headed and to 
give insight as to where we should be headed--contraction of their 
economy, despite the collapse of oil prices which has been devastating 
to their economy, Putin just announced budget cuts throughout every 
part of their government except for one--the one part of the budget 
they are holding harmless--military spending. I hope that gives some 
insight as to where they are heading.
  My last point on Russia is they are increasingly present in the 
Western Hemisphere. They are actively seeking lease agreements in 
Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Cuba to be able to have naval assets and 
aircraft stationed in our own backyard, in the Western Hemisphere.
  Let's talk about Asia for a moment, another place that poses some 
very significant national security and military implications for the 
United States.
  I talked about North Korea earlier. I think it bears repeating. North 
Korea doesn't have a government. It is a nation or is a territory 
governed by a criminal syndicate run by an insane and erratic leader--
but an insane and erratic leader with nuclear weapons, an insane and 
erratic leader who is developing long-range missile capabilities, and 
an insane and erratic leader that may end up overestimating his 
military capabilities, miscalculating, and trigger a dispute with South 
Korea that could quickly escalate and implicate the United States, 
which has a very strong and important military and defense agreement 
arrangement with South Korea and our allies in the south. It bears 
watching.
  Let's focus for a moment on China. First of all, we cannot ignore 
their aggressive territorial claims against both the Philippines and 
Japan. Interestingly, they picked on the Philippines first, a nation 
that doesn't have much of a military to speak of. This is the first 
nation they have gotten into a sort of conflict with, but they have 
them also with Japan and with Vietnam, and they have been pretty 
aggressive about it. To understand that, we have to understand a little 
bit about history.
  For thousands of years, China was the dominant nation in that region. 
For them, the last 200 years is an aberration, and their increasing 
assertiveness is an indication that they believe it is time to go back 
to normal, which is their dominance of the region. Their dominance, by 
the way, doesn't mean they are going to invade these countries and take 
them over. They are not going to invade the Philippines. They are not 
going to invade Japan.
  What they believe is that all these countries should be tributary 
stakes, that all these countries should fold underneath China's 
leadership, that all these countries should recognize China is big and 
they are small, and they should listen to China's directives and 
orders.
  So we see the silk road initiative. We see them trying to come up 
with an alternative to the other global institutions that have served 
the world so well since the end of World War II. They want to displace 
the United States and the global order that existed since the end of 
World War II with their own order, run by China to China's advantages, 
and that begins with territorial claims.
  The next time you have a chance to see in some Chinese passports, 
they have a map that indicates the nine-dash line. The nine-dash line 
is what they think the world looks like in terms of territories. If we 
look at what that means, they basically believe the entire South China 
Sea is their territory. That is why they have made these aggressive 
moves against these islands. Let me tell you how the strategy works.
  They send fishermen to these areas to fish or others to exploit 
resources. The other countries send out their coast guard to defend it. 
They send out their coast guard or navy to push back. They basically 
show you: Even if you wanted to fight against us, there is nothing you 
can do about it.
  Eventually what they want these nations to conclude is: There is no 
point in fighting China because we can't win. The United States is not 
going to come to our defense. So we might as well cut a deal with them 
and accept their dominance.
  That is their plan, slowly but surely to change the facts on the 
ground, to assert themselves, to convince these other countries there 
is nothing they can do about it. They can't count on the United States 
anymore, and eventually these countries will say: Fine, China. We will 
do whatever you want and cave. That is their plan and they are carrying 
it out.
  They have also shown their true colors in Hong Kong. When the 
agreement was signed to turn Hong Kong over from the United Kingdom to 
the Chinese, one of the things that was important in that agreement was 
autonomy; that Hong Kong couldn't have its own foreign policy, but it 
could have its own domestic system of government autonomous from the 
Chinese system.
  But now things have changed. Now the Chinese basically want to have 
veto power over who can run for office and who can lead Hong Kong. In 
fact, the criteria they have established is: You have to love the 
nation. But I will translate what that means: You have to love the 
Chinese Communist Party and do what they want you to do. So this is an 
important development that we need to keep an eye on.
  Beyond that, going back to military affairs for a moment--because we 
are on the NDAA--just look at what China is doing in its military 
expenditures: dramatic increases in military expenditures, the true 
nature of which we don't know because China doesn't pass a budget like 
ours for public knowledge. We know what they have spent, but we don't 
know how much more they have spent than what they have declared. But we 
can tell you they are developing anti-access/anti-area denial weapons, 
anti-access weapons. They have tested supersonic missiles fired off 
their ships designed to penetrate U.S. missile defense.
  Here is why they develop these: They want us to know that if we were 
to somehow encroach upon these territories, if there was a conflict in 
Asia and the United States responded militarily, the Chinese can 
destroy one of our aircraft carriers. The Chinese could destroy one of 
our expensive naval capabilities. That is what they want to be able to 
prove to us. What they hope the calculation will be is that the United 
States goes: Look. If one day China invades Taiwan, there is nothing we 
can do about it because we are not going to lose two aircraft carriers 
over a conflict.
  So that is why they are investing so much in these denial 
capabilities.

[[Page 17725]]

  They are also investing in space warfare, the ability to blow up our 
satellites because they know how dependent American national security 
is on having technological advantage. So China is racing to militarize 
space. It is a very serious threat to keep an eye on.
  A couple more points on the military. I will close by talking about 
the Western Hemisphere. The Western Hemisphere poses its own set of 
challenges as outlined earlier.
  Let's start with Venezuela. We took up a bill this week on Venezuela. 
It was an important bill and I am glad we passed it. It is on the way 
to the President's desk. It sanctions human rights violations.
  The Government of Venezuela is not an ally of the United States. They 
vote against this country in every international forum they can. They 
actively undermine U.S. national security interests. They are serial 
human rights violators at home, and we passed a bill that is going to 
sanction the human rights violators. The President has indicated he is 
going to sign it, and I think they are going to have a real impact.
  But Venezuela is headed for catastrophe. This is a rich country, by 
the way, headed toward economic catastrophe. Basic goods such as 
toothpaste and toilet paper are unavailable in Venezuela. The 
Venezuelan economy today resembles the Cuban economy. By the way, there 
is no embargo against Venezuela. It just shows socialism doesn't work. 
They have run out of things to give away.
  It is not a democracy. Venezuela is no longer a democracy. They have 
something called the National Electoral Commission, and they are 
actively, as we speak, trying to replace people not loyal to the 
government on that commission with people loyal to the governing party.
  The second thing I predict you are going to see is that the current 
President of Venezuela, Maduro, is going to move up the elections to 
July or June of this year because he knows the longer this crisis goes 
on, the less and less popular the government party is going to be. So I 
predict that the Venezuelan elections are going to be moved up, but I 
also predict financial disaster.
  In fact, here is a curious thing that we received calls about in the 
last few days. Venezuela is now begging the Petrocaribe nations, the 
Mercosur nations, and the Alba nations to buy Venezuelan products. In 
fact, they are going to the Petrocaribe nations and saying: Instead of 
paying us back in cash, you can pay us by buying our products.
  There is going to be a financial disaster in Venezuela. The price of 
oil and its collapse is not helping them.
  What I predict is not just financial disaster but severe depression, 
and I predict that in the year 2015 we are going to see severe human 
rights violations, severe repression on the part of the Maduro 
Government and everything that goes with it, all the impact that it is 
going to have on the region. It is something we need to be beginning to 
think about because that will lead to mass migration into Colombia and 
into the United States. That is going to lead to instability in the 
region that could potentially lead to armed conflict between the 
professional armed services of Venezuela and the Cuban agents who now 
for all intents and purposes run the Cuban Government.
  Talking about Cuba--a nation I talk a lot about because my parents 
came from there--I live in a community of people who came from there 
and had to leave for a free economy.
  Let me begin by saying that Alan Gross is still a hostage. Alan Gross 
committed no crime. He did nothing wrong. He is a hostage in a Cuban 
prison, a hostage the Cubans are holding because they want to exchange 
him for five Cuban spies convicted in the courts of the United States. 
Alan Gross is not a spy. All he wanted to do was help a small Jewish 
community in Cuba, and for that he was jailed. It is outrageous. It 
shows the true nature of this government.
  We shouldn't be surprised. They still detain as a matter of course 
innocent people who disagree. Every Sunday they beat up and harass the 
Ladies in White, which is a group of mothers who have sons in jail or 
fathers who have been killed or husbands who have been killed or 
jailed, who every Sunday march and dress in white to protest the 
government, and every Sunday the government thugs come after them. It 
is shameful that the people know this and look the other way, but that 
is the reality that is happening every single day in Cuba. It is still 
going on. It is the most repressive government in the Western 
Hemisphere and one of the most repressive governments in the world.
  They are also a violator of international agreements. We know for a 
fact that a ship going through the Panama Canal from Cuba to North 
Korea was carrying equipment and material in violation of the U.N. 
sanctions on North Korea. The U.N., which is not an easy place to get 
to condemn Cuba, found the exact same thing. And our response to that 
has been nothing--absolutely nothing. The Cuban Government assisted 
North Korea in evading U.N. sanctions, and we have done nothing about 
it.
  On the contrary, we have people who are saying: Let's lift the 
embargo and normalize relations--which leads me to a point directly 
related to this, which is the nomination of Tony Blinken that is before 
this Senate. I would use every procedural method available to me to 
ensure that this Senate will have to take as long as possible to 
confirm him, and I will tell you why. On three separate occasions I 
asked Mr. Blinken: Is your government going to ignore U.S. law and 
unilaterally change policy toward Cuba? And he would not answer my 
question. So until I get a clear answer on that, I intend to hold his 
nomination as long as the rules allow me to.
  I would like to make one more point about Cuba. In addition to being 
the ally to every tyrant on the planet--from Assad, to Iran, to Qadhafi 
before he fell and died--by the way, Cuba is the home of a significant 
number of Medicare fugitives, people who have come to the United States 
and stolen money from Medicare. That is a subject for another day, but 
Medicare fraud in South Florida is rampant. It is out of control. In 
fact, law enforcement officials in South Florida will tell you that if 
you are only willing to steal $200,000 a month, they will never catch 
you. An inordinate number of people are coming from Cuba, stealing from 
Medicare, and then when they are about to get caught, they go back to 
Cuba with all that money. There are numerous Medicare fugitives in 
Cuba. It is hard to believe that they came here and were able to mount 
such operations so quickly without assistance from somebody.
  Now we see signals from the White House that we are going to invite 
Cuba--that we are open to them being invited to the Summit of the 
Americas--the Summit of the Americas is a forum for democracy, not for 
20th-century relics such as the Cuban Government. And now there is talk 
of unilateral policy changes. I want us to change policy toward Cuba, 
but the first step that has to happen is from the Cuban Government. 
They have to change first.
  Let me tell you what would happen if we lifted the embargo on Cuba 
tomorrow. What would happen is what is happening now with China. We 
passed a bill today out of Foreign Relations on the issue of Hong Kong, 
and I am getting phone calls in my office from American companies that 
do business in China that are saying: Hey, why don't you guys drop 
that? What they are really saying is: Hey, why don't you guys drop 
that? It is bad for the deal we have going with the Chinese.
  That is the same thing that will happen. If we lift the embargo, 
American companies will become invested in whatever deal the regime 
gives them, and they will come to DC and lobby on behalf of the 
interests of that regime without any interest of the freedom and 
liberty of the Cuban people.
  I will fight with all the marrow in my bones against any sort of 
unilateral change in U.S. policy toward Cuba.
  From a military perspective, Cuba is not a benign country, although 
they don't have the military they once had. In fact, there have been 
open source reports that Cuba is looking to restart,

[[Page 17726]]

with Russian cooperation, an intelligence-gathering station in the city 
of Lourdes in Cuba whose sole purpose is to collect intelligence 
against the United States, particularly Southern Command in South 
Florida. So as we look at the NDAA, that is something to keep in mind.
  I would close with four points that we should think about as we get 
into the new year and we debate this bill on national security and 
national defense.
  The first is this: We should stop confusing tactics with strategy. We 
had a debate today in the Foreign Relations Committee about authorizing 
the use of military force. Everyone wants to debate tactics: Should it 
be 3 years or 1 year? Should we have ground troops or no ground troops? 
Should we define the geography of where it is and where it isn't?
  Tactics are not the same thing as strategy, and time and again around 
the world with many of these problems, this administration has not 
articulated a strategy. They are telling us what we are tactically 
doing. We are doing airstrikes, imposing sanctions. But they don't tell 
us what the strategy is. What is the strategy behind all these things? 
The strategy should be clear.
  We are in favor of a world that is free and a world that is 
prosperous, where more people than ever live in a prosperous middle 
class so they can buy the things we sell and invent and innovate and 
make and the services we offer. We want there to be peace and 
prosperity throughout the world, and we believe the best system for 
that is an international order that respects human rights and democracy 
and freedom and the dignity of every individual. That is our overlying 
aim, and of course the security of the United States is deeply tied to 
all of this.
  In each region of the world, we would have a strategy--a strategy 
that, because it is backed up by strong national defense, tells our 
partners in Asia that we are here for the long haul. And not only are 
we here to pivot to Asia, we have something to pivot with through our 
military capability that tells NATO: You still do have a purpose, and 
that purpose is to ensure the territorial integrity of the nations of 
Europe; a military strategy that tells our partners in the Middle East: 
We stand with you, and we will do what we need to do to defeat radical 
jihadists and prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon. So that is 
important.
  The second thing is that we have to spend money on these things. The 
sequester cuts to the military are unsustainable. At a time when the 
world has gotten more complicated, where the threats that this Nation 
faces have gotten more complicated and more difficult to deal with than 
ever before, we are severely cutting back our military spending in an 
unsustainable way. In fact, no one believed that the budget cuts we are 
facing in the military now were realistic or sane, for that matter. 
That is why they put them in that bill I voted against--because they 
thought these budget cuts were so bad, they would force them to 
actually do something about the debt. They underestimated the 
willingness of this Congress to do bad things, because those cuts are 
here to stay, and we have the smallest Air Force and Navy at least 
since the end of World War II, while our potential adversaries are 
ramping up military spending and their military capabilities.
  My third point is directly related to national defense and national 
security. We cannot continue to try to erode our intelligence-gathering 
capabilities. The threats we face around the world are real and they 
are significant. They are threats from nation states such as Russia and 
China. They are threats from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea. 
They are threats from nonstate actors such as al Qaeda and ISIL. They 
are threats from transnational criminal groups who steal the personal 
data of Americans and who could potentially conduct other cyber attacks 
against our infrastructure.
  These threats are real, and I hope the day will never come, but if it 
does and if another major attack occurs here in the homeland--perhaps 
one even worse than 9/11--the first question people are going to ask 
will be, Why didn't we know about it and why weren't we able to stop 
it? And the answer cannot be because we took apart our intelligence-
gathering capabilities, because we took down our ability to identify 
these threats, and we took them down because of conspiracy theories, 
because we have people running around telling people that all their 
phone calls are being listened to, that all their cell phone calls are 
being tracked. That is false. That is categorically and patently false. 
That is not true. Yet we are prepared to dismantle our ability to 
acquire information that could prevent those sorts of attacks.
  By the way, these are intelligence capabilities that also give us a 
strategic advantage over potential adversaries and intelligence-
gathering abilities that also inform our diplomacy. Yet there are 
people advocating taking that apart. In fact, just today we had someone 
come to the floor of the Senate and divulge classified information on 
the floor of the Senate. Unprecedented, outrageous, irresponsible, and 
unacceptable.
  Last but not least, we have to truly believe with all our hearts that 
the world is a safer and better place when America is the strongest 
military power in the world. No nation is perfect. Ours never has 
claimed to be. But I know of no nation that has used its power more 
benevolently than we have. It is Americans who have sent their sons and 
daughters abroad to fight for the freedom and liberty of other people. 
It is America that has gone abroad to fight against communism and 
radical Islam and nazism and Imperial Japan and other threats to human 
dignity and the survival of mankind, and we did so without taking a 
single inch of territory. We didn't turn Iraq into the 51st State. We 
didn't turn Afghanistan into a U.S. territory.
  This is a nation that, after we defeated Japan and Germany in World 
War II, helped to rebuild those countries. Today they are among our 
strongest allies. This is the country that, even after a ceasefire in 
the Korean war, still stands so many years later on the frontlines of 
South Korea protecting her freedom and territorial integrity to a point 
where South Korea--a nation that just two decades ago was a beneficiary 
of global aid--is now a donor; a country that has gone from having an 
economy smaller than North Korea's to now having one of the top 10 
economies in the world. This is the Nation that did that.
  We are not perfect, but I challenge you to find another nation in 
human history that has used its military power for the good of mankind 
more than we have. The world knows that too. When you talk about 
national defense, it is not just about bombs and bullets.
  Let me close with a story I picked up earlier this year when I 
traveled to Asia. I went to the Philippines, an area badly hit by the 
storm last year. This area was devastated. These people were already 
poor to begin with, and the typhoon made things even worse.
  I got to speak to some of the people. I asked them: When did you 
finally know there was hope? Was it when the humanitarian aid groups 
showed up or when the U.N. got here? When was it that you finally 
thought that there is hope here?
  A gentleman turned to me and said: Do you know when I knew there was 
actually some hope? When I woke up one morning and looked to the 
horizon and there was a U.S. aircraft carrier. That is when I started 
to believe that maybe we are going to make it, maybe things are going 
to be OK.
  That aircraft carrier didn't stay long, but it stayed long enough to 
make a difference in those early days after that storm, and it stayed 
long enough to give people hope. It is the same aircraft carrier they 
saw off the coast of Haiti after the terrible earthquake. It is the 
same aircraft carrier they saw off the coast of Japan after they had a 
nuclear accident. That is also America's military power. That is also 
what we have done with our national defense capabilities.
  We have not been perfect, but America has been a source for good in 
the world. No nation in the history of mankind has ever done more good 
for the

[[Page 17727]]

planet and for the people of this Earth than we have, and we should be 
proud of that. Now is not the time to dismantle that capability. The 
world needs a strong America today and now more than it ever has.
  With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Order of Business

  Mr. REID. Madam President, we are going to pass, sometime tonight, 
before 12 o'clock, a resolution that will ensure that the government 
does not shut down. The House passed the omnibus. It was by a nice 
margin--not overwhelmingly, but a nice margin. As a result of that, we 
will take up the long-term spending bill tomorrow.
  Senators who want to debate this legislation will have that 
opportunity. The Senate will vote on the long-term funding bill as soon 
as possible. In the Senate, ``as soon as possible'' could be tomorrow, 
it could be 2 days after cloture is filed on it, it could be a lot of 
different times.
  But we are going to work as hard as we can to expedite things around 
here. But if we are going to do this tomorrow, we need cooperation from 
everyone. As I indicated, we had a number of things we had to do. We 
had to keep the government functioning. We are going to do that 
tonight. We are going to do a short-term extension, as I have 
indicated, until we finish this bill. I think the extension will be for 
2 days. That means we have to finish this bill in the next 2 days.
  We have to finish the defense bill that is now before the body. That 
time runs out tomorrow afternoon. No one can stop us from the time 
running out tomorrow afternoon. We hope to be able to expedite that. 
There are conversations going on now to make that so we can finish that 
sometime early tomorrow afternoon.
  I want to take this time, though, to spread on the Record my 
admiration for the work done by Senator Barbara Mikulski, the 
chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. This good woman came 
to the Senate when I came. We came together. I was fortunate to be on 
that Appropriations Committee as a freshman. That was really a big deal 
for this young Senator. Seniority-wise, there was always one person 
ahead of me, and that was Barbara Mikulski. She has done a remarkably 
good job as a Senator. I have said many times, when we came to the 
Senate together, she was it. There was no other woman here. Look at 
what she has done as the matriarch of this body. Everybody looks up to 
her--men and women. She is someone who is admired by everyone. Her 
taking over this Appropriations Committee was something she had wanted 
to do for a long time. She has done such a good job.
  She is proud of the committee. She is trying to reestablish the 
committee to what it used to be. We as legislators have to recognize we 
have three separate branches of government. In terms of the 
Constitution they are supposed to be equal. We have had a lot of our 
power taken from us by the executive branch of government. Barbara 
Mikulski is trying to reestablish that so we have three separate, equal 
branches of government.
  What took place in the House today, a few minutes ago, will help her 
establish the Appropriations Committee for what it should be. We have 
an obligation as legislators to have congressionally directed spending. 
That is in the Constitution. All the decisions as to where the money 
goes should not be made down at 16th and Pennsylvania Avenue.
  So the bill that she and Congressman Rogers worked on is not a 
perfect bill. But as the Presiding Officer knows as a legislator, there 
are no perfect bills. There are some people who are upset about items 
in this bill. To be candid with you, I am kind of upset about some 
items in the bill. But this bill is so much better than a short-term 
CR. It would have been--when I say ``short term'' I mean 3 months and 
do it all over and over again, threatening the government to shut down, 
especially about the same time we have to raise the debt ceiling again. 
So I want to end by saying this would never ever have happened but for 
Barbara Mikulski.
  Tomorrow should be a very interesting day. With a little bit of good 
fortune, we could complete the spending bill for the country for the 
fiscal year that is fast upon us. We could finish the defense bill and 
then look to do the tax extenders and completing the work on TRIA, 
whatever that may be.
  From that point forward we would work on nominations. We could be out 
of here fairly quickly. But everyone is going to have to work together 
to get this done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                         Omnibus Spending Bill

  Ms. MIKULSKI. I rise to speak on the omnibus spending bill for fiscal 
year 2015.
  I wish to thank the Democratic leader, the majority leader, for his 
kind words. But it is not only about his kind words about me, it has 
been his advocacy to make sure that as we look at the need for funding 
for the entire government that there would be no government shutdown 
and no government on autopilot.
  Just a few minutes ago, the House of Representatives did their part. 
They passed the omnibus spending bill, passing it 219 to 206. It was 
well debated and the vote speaks for itself. It now comes to the 
Senate, and I am here tonight to kick off that debate.
  For hours after hours after hours in the past several days, I have 
heard what is wrong with this bill. I don't dispute my colleagues' 
analysis, I will debate it, but now we have to start talking about what 
are the good aspects of this bill and why we did this bill in the first 
place. Tonight I want to remind people what we are doing.
  First, we are funding the entire U.S. Government's discretionary 
spending. We have $550 billion in the bill for national defense, to 
stand for America, to make sure our troops have the best weapons, the 
best support, and the best medical treatment--$550 billion, for more 
money for peacekeeping, for money to fight ISIL, to refuel an aircraft 
carrier. We did our job. You will hear more about that.
  We wanted to also fight Ebola, which had the American people near 
panic this summer. We said we have a plan, working with the 
administration, and some of the best scientists and thinkers in our own 
country, and brave and gallant people such as Doctors Without Borders 
over there. While they make the cover of Time magazine, they are now 
going to make the Federal checkbook in the United States of America.
  We have $5.4 billion to deal with Ebola, a huge sum of money to fight 
it in Africa. It is also to make sure we are ready for any pandemic in 
the United States.
  We also have a Samaritan set of money to deal--that is my word--with 
the Samaritan communities who were willing to take the Ebola patients, 
care for them, treat them, and make sure there was security for them 
and their surrounding communities. Millions of dollars were spent, 
whether it was in Nebraska, whether it was in Georgia at Emory.
  My own home State is home to the National Institutes of Health, where 
a patient flew in to a small rural airport. They were ready to accept 
and provide the security down route 270 to get them to the beds at NIH. 
Those communities need to be recognized. We do that.
  We have money in the bill for national security, but we also have 
money for veterans. Oh, we love our veterans. We love to sing songs, we 
love to wear yellow ribbons, we love to go to concerts. We even love to 
vote for an authorizing bill. I did it. But without money in the 
Federal checkbook, it is a hollow opportunity.
  So guess what. Your Appropriations Committee, on a bipartisan basis, 
said we are going to do something that was never done before. We are 
going to put in the money not only to meet what we said we would do--to 
reform health care. No more wait lists, no more backlogs. No more them 
being a victim of

[[Page 17728]]

the dysfunctional Congress if there is a shutdown or a gridlock.
  We then did something. We, working with the veterans service 
organizations and the authorizing committee, by Senator Sanders, we 
have advanced appropriations. So even if there is a shutdown or delay, 
our veterans will be taken care of.
  There is more money in there for research. There is more money in 
there for care. There is an extra $40 million to add to the close to $2 
billion to deal with the backlog. These numbers are mind-numbing, but 
the results are not.
  We have that money and we also increased the DOD defense money for 
medical research for prosthetic devices, for stunning achievements such 
as in my own Johns Hopkins where they did a limb transplant. Working 
with Department of Defense dollars, our gifted and talent surgeon was 
able to take a veteran and reinstitute limbs, muscle, and nerve 
endings.
  This enables them to also come up with a technique to prevent the 
rejection that often comes with transplants. It is stunning. That man 
will be able to have the use of his arms because of this type of work 
that we do here and what we do to help him will be able to help 
hundreds, and one day we will be able to help thousands.
  That is what we do in appropriations. We take good intentions and 
make them as big dreams as possible. We are very proud of that.
  The other item we are proud of is on a bipartisan basis we passed the 
child care and development block grant. Working with Senators Risch and 
Burr of North Carolina, I led that. With the superb help of Senators 
Alexander and Harkin, we passed it.
  But we also wanted to reform our quality standards, regulation 
without strangulation. We now know that we are going to have fire and 
safety inspection facilities, better training for providers, and 
background checks to make sure our vulnerable populations are 
protected. But for everything that we ask, we put in $75 million to be 
able to deal with this. I think that is pretty impressive.
  The other issue we worked out was how we worked out the college 
affordability. In this program that we passed, we will increase the 
maximum Pell grant by $100 for a total maximum of $58,530, $100 more. 
That means you will be able to buy a book, you will be able to pay that 
lab fee if you want to be a nurse or an inhalation therapist, a 
surgical tech, and so on. But we also reformed the Pell grants, so any 
student who simultaneously is working on a GED and a college degree 
would be eligible for Pell grants.
  As part of the listening tours that Senator Cardin and I had, we 
found out that there were many people who at a certain point in life 
dropped out of school. They made a particular choice that they now are 
trying to compensate for. So they are working on their GED, making 
great progress. They have to show that, but simultaneously they are 
eligible for that Pell grant so they don't lose time. We have been able 
to do that.
  There are other aspects related to college affordability, but we also 
wanted to focus on safety issues. We have money now for the 149 air 
traffic control facilities in rural communities. Those 149 air traffic 
controllers--we have the Maryland 5: Salisbury, Easton, Frederick, 
Hagerstown, and Baltimore County. I know the Presiding Officer has them 
in Wisconsin. That is taken care of.
  We also wanted to look at other areas of safety such as food safety. 
Thanks to what we have done in this bill, we have funded the FDA so 
they can meet the new food safety standards we are concerned about.
  I am also particularly happy and proud of what we did for women. I 
won't go into all the discussions on ObamaCare, the usual provocative 
topic such as funding for abortion and very special circumstances. Yes, 
we will talk about that tomorrow.
  Do you know what I am happy about? What we did for victims of 
violence. This legislation has $430 million for the Violence Against 
Women Act. It is at an all-time high. Again, taking what the 
authorizers wanted--but they all do conference calls in their home 
State. We actually put money into the Federal checkbook.
  We also paid special attention to the situation of what happens to 
rape victims. Very often--and I know you talk with the rape victims in 
your own State or those who are their advocates--they feel doubly 
victimized. They often feel there was a violent attack on them--so 
repugnant I don't want even to talk about it on the Senate floor, which 
is horrible enough. But when they turn to the system, they often find 
that the very forensics that are needed to go after the perpetrator are 
either stuck in a crime lab somewhere in a backlog or, even worse, 
sitting in a police locker instead of being tested. So they wait days, 
weeks, months, and even years.
  We have gotten into this, thanks to our Vice President, Joe Biden, 
who was the originator of the Violence Against Women Act. He asked the 
Justice Department to go to police departments and say where is this 
evidence and why isn't it being processed?
  They found there were over 400,000 sexual assault kits sitting in 
police lockers instead of getting tested. Can you imagine? Four hundred 
thousand.
  Thanks again to the advocates, the best ideas come from the people--I 
think somebody is calling me now about it.
  What we have now is we have added a $40 million grant program, again 
a bipartisan effort, to go work with local police departments to bring 
down--where we already know where they have gotten underway with 
existing funds, they are finding that some of these predators have been 
serial rapists. Some of their cases go back 5, 10, 15 years because of 
the DNA things we can do. We can do this. We are going to change it.
  There are other issues I can talk about, droughts, forest fires, all 
of these kinds of things. I will talk about them more tomorrow, but I 
just wanted to show the American people tonight, as we kick off this 
debate, while we focus on three items--and I don't minimize their 
importance, I don't minimize the value to debate them. I want people to 
know what is in this bill.
  When we had to deal with the omnibus, we had to deal with $1 trillion 
because we were stiff-armed, and also we couldn't bring up the bills 
one at a time, so we have to bring all but the Homeland Security up 
now.
  We faced 98 riders, some of which were highly controversial. We did 
the best we could with them, and I will have more to say about those 
tomorrow.
  But while everybody talks about one item or this item, I wanted to 
talk about some of these items. I really hope we pass this omnibus 
bill, because when we do, our country will be safer because of threats 
over there. We will be safer because of threats at home.
  But I believe the biggest threats we face are gridlock, deadlock, and 
the way we paralyze ourselves by making the perfect the enemy of the 
good. No piece of legislation is perfect. I will be the first to say 
that in this bill.
  By the way, people might say: Boy, this is a big bill, Senator 
Mikulski. It really is. It is discretionary funding for our entire 
Federal Government, but it is also on the Web site. People can go to 
our individual subcommittees in Defense, Labor-HHS, Interior, 
Transportation and Housing, and read about what we did.
  I had to summarize here. I was prepared to read them all night, but I 
know we are anxious to bring this evening to a close. But I wanted to 
open the debate today to talk about how we tried to govern on a 
bipartisan basis.
  We have reached across the aisle and we have reached across the 
Capitol dome. The House has done its job. Now I hope we do our job and 
that within the next 24 hours we pass the omnibus spending bill and 
show that we can govern, that we will not have a government shutdown, 
we will not have government on autopilot, and we will be able to fund 
our responsibilities, protect America, and really prepare America for 
both today and the rest of the 21st century.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues.

[[Page 17729]]

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, once again, the Senate has an opportunity 
to consider the National Defense Authorization Act. This bill is named 
for the two retiring chairmen of the Senate and House Armed Services 
Committees, Senator Carl Levin and Congressman Buck McKeon. Carl Levin 
has been a fierce defender of Michigan, strong advocate for the men and 
women of our armed services, and a friend. When the Senate passes this 
bill, and the President signs it into law, it will be a fitting tribute 
to Senator Levin's storied legacy of public service.
  This compromise--a comprehensive authorization of the Nation's 
military arm--is far from perfect. No bill is. But this authorization 
provides support and resources for the men and women who serve in the 
Armed Forces, who defend our Nation, and whose families sacrifice so 
much in the name of public service. The bill prepares our country to 
face future challenges, and promotes the goals and values that have 
become a hallmark of our national defense.
  Of primary importance to me, this defense authorization bill protects 
the Leahy law, the requirements by which we vet the individuals and 
units of foreign security forces we train and equip. While one 
component of the Leahy law, traditionally incorporated annually in the 
Department of State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill as it 
relates to the activities of the State Department, was made permanent 
in 2012 as section 620M of the Foreign Assistance Act, this Defense 
authorization bill makes the component of the law as it relates to 
Defense Department activities permanent law.
  This provision permits human rights training, which is narrowly 
defined, for individuals who are members of units of foreign security 
forces that have been deemed ineligible under the Leahy law. However, 
those individuals must not have been involved in violations, the 
training must have the concurrence of the State Department, it may only 
occur in the individuals' home countries, the State Department must be 
consulted on the content, methodology, and intended beneficiaries, and 
the training is not sufficient for meeting the accountability 
requirement for purposes of the exception in the law.
  Some in the Pentagon have suggested that the Leahy law has impeded 
their ability to engage with foreign security forces. Not only do the 
facts prove otherwise, that is the same discredited claim of those who 
have argued that the CIA's torture of prisoners was legal and made us 
safer.
  The United States may have the most powerful military, but that power 
is immeasurably weakened if we fail to uphold the values and principles 
this Nation was founded on: due process, respect for the rule of law, 
and respect for the laws of war.
  We should learn from history. When we abandon those values and 
principles and support or associate ourselves with foreign forces who 
commit atrocities, we pay a heavy price.
  This defense authorization also includes a provision I authored with 
Senator Lindsey Graham to establish a commission on the future of the 
army. The President's fiscal year 2015 budget proposal reflected many 
tough choices about the future size and shape of each of the services. 
It also included decisions about the U.S. Army that would irreversibly 
change the nature of that branch. Most dramatically, the proposal 
included a plan to eliminate the Nation's reserve of Apache helicopters 
by consolidating all of them within the active component. Such a move 
raises serious questions about the ability to sustain long-term 
operations or be ready for unexpected contingencies. As cochairs of the 
Senate National Guard Caucus, Senator Graham and I, with the support of 
47 other Senators, proposed legislation to minimize the budgetary 
impact of these decisions by providing for additional review while 
allowing tough, but noncontroversial changes to go forward. I am 
grateful to Senator Levin and our partners in the House for supporting 
its inclusion in this broader bill.
  This authorization bill will provide important support to the men and 
women of our Armed Forces and their families. While I do not support 
some of the included changes to benefits, those that are part of this 
final bill are far less severe than originally proposed. With the 
Military Compensation and Retirement Commission soon to report, I hope 
we can finally put an end to what has become an annual effort by the 
Department of Defense to draw back benefits already earned by our 
servicemembers. There should be no bait and switch.
  Unrelated to defense policy, I am grateful that this legislation 
includes an important designation for Vermont. The National Wild and 
Scenic Rivers System recognizes and preserves rivers with remarkable 
scenic and recreational value. With the passage of this legislation, 
Vermont will join 40 other States with designated national wild and 
scenic rivers. This designation of the Upper Missisquoi and Trout 
Rivers is the capstone of more than 7 years of work, including intense 
study and planning by the local communities that want to protect the 
natural, cultural, and recreational qualities of these rivers.
  This defense authorization bill is not perfect; politics as much as 
policy makes that the case. I am disappointed that this authorization 
fails to build on important progress made last year to streamline the 
transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay and move closer to finally 
shuttering the detention facility there. This compromise bill will 
maintain the status quo by continuing to prohibit the transfer of 
detainees to the United States for detention or trial. I am 
disappointed that a provision contained in the Senate Armed Services 
Committee version of the authorization that would have provided 
exceptions to this prohibition was removed during negotiations. 
However, I am pleased that the bill does not contain the statutory ban 
on detainee transfers to Yemen that also was contained in the Senate 
bill.
  As long as the detention facility at Guantanamo remains open, it 
serves as a recruitment tool for terrorists, and tarnishes America's 
historic role as a champion of human rights. The prison facility at 
Guantanamo remains a tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars--costing this 
country billions of dollars at a time when budgets are tight and that 
money is needed elsewhere. Closing Guantanamo is the morally 
responsible thing to do; my commitment on that has not wavered.
  With regard to some of the provisions included in this bill that 
relate to combatting the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria 
(ISIS), I expect the Department of Defense to abide by the Leahy law. 
These terrorists pose a threat to the United States and to our 
partners; they must be stopped and brought to justice. But we cannot 
ignore our own laws or permit the United States to be implicated, 
either directly or indirectly, in gross violations of human rights when 
we support either governments or irregular forces in the fight against 
ISIS.
  There have been multiple reports that some in the Iraqi Army and the 
militias they fight alongside engage in reprehensible conduct similar 
to the barbaric crimes of ISIS. As a matter of law and policy, we must 
condemn this. I cannot--and will not--support any effort to weaken the 
application of the Leahy law to the Iraqi Army or to any entity it is 
aligned with.
  As in every defense authorization bill, there are things in here that 
I support and things I wish were not in here. Compromise is inherent in 
this process. But we cannot forsake our principles and ideals when it 
comes to supporting our national defense and the men and women who 
serve. I will support this compromise bill and remain committed to 
ensuring that we preserve the values that make this Nation a beacon of 
civil and human rights around the globe.
  Madam President, I am grateful that the fiscal year 15 National 
Defense Authorization Act includes an important designation for 
Vermont. The National Wild and Scenic Rivers system recognizes and 
preserves rivers with remarkable scenic and recreational value. With 
the passage of this legislation, Vermont will join 40 other States with 
designated National Wild and Scenic

[[Page 17730]]

Rivers. Designation of the Upper Missisquoi and Trout Rivers is the 
capstone of more than 7 years of work, including intense study and 
planning by the local communities who want to protect the natural, 
cultural and recreational qualities of these rivers.
  This has not been a Federal-led initiative; instead it was an 
occasion for Vermont citizens to work together. The communities along 
the rivers contacted me in 2006 to request the initial Federal study 
for this designation. The decision to move ahead was made by local 
communities that agreed to specific goals and priorities for these two 
rivers. This designation was put to a vote at the communities' town 
meetings and was approved by every town that is included in the 
legislation.
  National Wild and Scenic status for these rivers will help the local 
communities promote recreational use, while also protecting the rights 
and values of landowners who make their homes and livings on the banks 
of these rivers. I am proud that this process has been driven by the 
impacted communities, working to ensure that the Upper Missisquoi and 
Trout Rivers will forever be enjoyed by fishermen, hunters, and 
paddlers and that water quality will be protected. The benefits will 
extend downstream as far as Lake Champlain and beyond.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. 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. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________