[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15763-15784]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016--CONFERENCE 
                                 REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1735, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 1 
p.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their 
designees.
  The Senator from Utah.


                      The Right to Extended Debate

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, 2 months ago I came to the Senate floor in 
my capacity as President pro tempore to speak to my colleagues about 
the importance of maintaining decorum and respect in this body. I 
reminded them that decorum is essential to the proper functioning of 
the Senate and to its unique role in our constitutional structure. The 
Framers designed the Senate to be an institution of deliberation and 
reason, where Members would work to promote consensus and the common 
good rather than their own narrow, partisan interests. Today I rise 
once more in my capacity as President pro tempore, this time to discuss 
another defining feature of this body--the right to extended debate.
  The Framers designed the Senate to serve as a necessary fence against 
the fickleness and passion that drives hasty lawmaking--what Edmund 
Randolph called the turbulence and follies of democracy. James Madison 
in turn described the Senate as a bulwark against what he called the 
transient impressions into which the people may from time to time be 
led. Senators were to refine the popular will to wisdom and sound 
judgment, reaching measured conclusions about how best to address the 
Nation's challenges. It is no accident that passing bills through this 
body takes time. The Framers intended the Senate to be the cooler, more 
deliberate, more reasoned branch. As Madison once said, the Senate was 
to ``consist in its proceedings with more coolness, with more system, 
and with more wisdom than the [House of Representatives].''
  Key to the Senate's deliberative nature is its relatively small size, 
which enables a much more thoroughgoing debate and greater opportunity 
for individual Members to improve legislative proposals. Longer, 
staggered terms also give Members flexibility to resist initially 
popular yet ultimately unwise legislation, and statewide constituencies 
require Senators to appeal to a

[[Page 15764]]

broader set of interests than do narrow, more homogenous House 
districts. To these constitutional characteristics, the Senate has 
added a number of traditions--some formal, others informal--that have 
enhanced its deliberative character. Foremost among these traditions is 
the right to extend debate--what we today call the filibuster.
  For many years--indeed, for the first 130 years of this body's 
existence--there was no formal way to cut off debate. Senators could, 
in theory, speak as long as they wanted, on whatever subject they 
wanted. In 1917, the Senate adopted the first cloture rule, which 
required a two-thirds vote to end debate. Filibusters remained rare, 
although they were used from time to time to delay legislation. In 
1975, under the leadership of Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, the 
Senate lowered the cloture threshold from two-thirds to three-fifths, 
where it has remained ever since, with the notable exception of Senate 
Democrats' unilateral decision last Congress to lower the cloture 
threshold for most nominations to a simple majority vote. The cloture 
threshold for legislative filibusters remains three-fifths.
  Now, one may wonder why a device that allows a minority of Senators 
to delay or block legislation is a good thing. My friends and 
colleagues, the junior Senator from Oregon and the senior Senator from 
New Mexico spoke on the Senate floor last week about the importance of 
majority rule and the need to allow legislation to proceed. I do not 
deny that obstructionism can be a serious problem. Obstinately refusing 
to allow any legislation to move forward or requiring complete 
capitulation by opponents is not statesmanship, and it is not what the 
Framers had in mind. But when exercised properly, the right to extended 
debate can measurably improve policy.
  The filibuster furthers two of the Senate's key purposes. First, it 
helps to guard against intemperate impulses that may from time to time 
infect our political order. Second, it facilitates the process of 
refining the popular will.
  The way in which the filibuster guards against intemperate impulses 
is obvious. By requiring a supermajority to pass major legislation, the 
filibuster ensures that a narrow partisan majority swept into office 
through a fluke election does not go about unravelling vast swaths of 
America's legal architecture. The filibuster also ensures that the same 
narrow majority does not run riot with new, pie-in-the-sky ideas that 
cost billions of dollars while producing little discernible benefit.
  I would point my colleagues to two major, extremely controversial 
measures that passed the House in 2009 but went nowhere in the Senate: 
the cap-and-trade energy tax and the so-called public option for health 
insurance. Speaker Pelosi was barely able to ram through cap and trade 
by a vote of 219 to 212. The public option passed by an even slimmer 
margin of 220 to 215. These two pieces of legislation received little 
consideration in this body because there were nowhere near enough votes 
for cloture. Absent the filibuster, however, it is likely both would 
have passed the Senate and become law. Had that occurred, a temporary 
electoral victory would have wrought fundamental changes to American 
energy policy and put our Nation even more firmly on the path to 
government-run health care.
  Many on the left may point to the failure of cap and trade and of the 
public option in 2009 as reasons to eliminate, not preserve, the 
filibuster. After all, it prevented progressives from achieving two of 
their most sought-after policy goals. But consider what happened a mere 
2 years later, in the very next election: Voters delivered President 
Obama and the Democratic Party a sharp rebuke, voting out of office the 
highest number of Democratic officeholders in generations. Voters 
disapproved of the Democrats' policymaking, and registered their 
disapproval at the polls. Note, too, that the Democrats lost their 
majority in the House--the body that passed cap and trade and the 
public option--but retained their majority in the Senate--the body that 
never even took up either proposal.
  The filibuster prevented a transient Democratic majority from 
enacting far-reaching reforms that a majority of voters ultimately 
opposed. It didn't prevent all reforms. After all, the Democratic 
majority still managed to enact many of its policy priorities. But the 
filibuster prevented other extreme measures from becoming law and 
stopped a short-lived congressional majority from running roughshod 
over longstanding principles of federalism, free enterprise, and 
limited government.
  To my friends from Oregon and New Mexico and to others who argue that 
the filibuster is anti-democratic, I would say that it is in fact the 
opposite. The filibuster ensures that fundamental change comes only 
through sustained victories at the ballot box. It typically takes two 
or three successive victories at the polls to build a filibuster-proof 
majority. This multiyear window gives the public time to evaluate the 
majority's platform and to determine whether it is in fact the better 
course of action.
  If by democracy one means to win at all costs, perhaps one could say 
the filibuster is anti-democratic. But if democracy, as I believe, 
instead means the system for transforming the people's preferences into 
law, then the filibuster is not anti-democratic at all. Rather, it 
preserves the people's preferences until they decide emphatically, and 
with the benefit of review, that it is time for significant change.
  I have also said that the filibuster facilitates the process of 
refining the popular will. It does this in two ways. First, it gives 
opponents of a particular piece of legislation additional time to 
explain why the legislation is misguided or how it could be improved. 
It also gives proponents of the legislation additional time to explain 
why the objections are unfounded. This helps to increase understanding 
on both sides and also offers opportunities to correct problems with 
particular provisions.
  Second, by requiring 60 votes in order to proceed on controversial 
issues, the filibuster ensures increased buy-in. The process of 
refining the public will works only if Senators actually pay attention 
to legislation and devote their resources to examining it. By requiring 
60 Senators to assent to legislation rather than a bare majority, the 
filibuster ensures that no bill passes this body without first 
garnering broad support. The process of getting to 60 requires more 
scrutiny, more investigation, and more consensus than the process of 
getting to a bare majority. It also decreases the likelihood of deeply 
flawed legislation making it to the President's desk because more 
Senators have to agree that the legislation warrants passage.
  To the extent there are problems with the filibuster, they are not 
problems with the filibuster itself but with how it has sometimes been 
used in recent years, as a matter of fact. In April of this year, I 
spoke on the floor about the need for mutual restraint in the Senate, 
about the need for both sides to exercise discretion in wielding the 
powers of the majority and the minority. Yes, the filibuster can be a 
tool for improving legislation and winning important promises from the 
Executive, but it can also be abused for narrow partisan ends. It can 
be used to bring business to a halt for irrelevant or unimportant 
purposes or merely to make a point. It can be used to win an unsavory 
favor for a particular individual or constituency, and it can be used 
to create false narratives about the majority's ability to govern.
  From time to time we hear calls--including by Members of this body--
to strip the minority of certain rights. Lately, there have been calls 
by some in the media, on the campaign trail, and on the other side of 
the Capitol to eliminate the filibuster. Though these calls to abolish 
the filibuster may be instinctively appealing, we should reject them. 
Without the filibuster and other important minority rights, the Senate 
would lose its unique character. It would become less a body marked by 
deliberation and reasoned debate and more a body where the majority 
gets whatever it wants. Indeed, stripped of minority rights, the Senate 
would merely duplicate the work of the House

[[Page 15765]]

of Representatives. That may be advantageous for the current Senate 
majority, but it would not fulfill the constitutional design in 
creating a second House of Congress where the popular will would be 
refined through prudent judgment.
  Those who call on the Senate to abolish the filibuster should keep in 
mind that this is not the first Congress to face institutional 
challenges. Indeed, I would urge my colleagues to recall the example of 
Mike Mansfield, the late Senator from Montana, whom I referenced 
earlier. Senator Mansfield served as Senate majority leader from 1961 
to 1977, longer than any other Senator in history. During Senator 
Mansfield's time as majority leader, the Nation confronted a number of 
difficult, divisive issues. Chief among these were debates over school 
integration and civil rights, which deeply split the Democratic caucus. 
Near the beginning of his tenure, when a determined minority stalled 
President Kennedy's legislative priorities, Senator Mansfield faced 
great pressure from within his own party to exert the majority's power 
more assertively. In an act of great courage, Senator Mansfield 
resisted the calls of his colleagues to bend Senate rules. Though 
tempted by the prospect of important political victories, he instead 
counselled that the remedy to gridlock ``lies not in the seeking of 
shortcuts, not in the cracking of nonexistent whips, not in wheeling 
and dealing, but in an honest facing of the situation and a resolution 
of it by the Senate itself, by accommodation, by respect for one 
another, [and] by mutual restraint.''
  Senator Mansfield was absolutely right. For the Senate to function 
effectively, Senators of all stripes must practice mutual restraint--
Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal, majority and 
minority alike.
  The solution to our current strife is not to change the rules but to 
follow them and to wield them only as necessary to improve legislation. 
Cooperation, not going nuclear, is what will restore this body to 
proper functioning. Going nuclear will only hollow out this institution 
and infect more of what we do with puerile partisan poison.
  I wish to close by quoting two great statesmen who loved the Senate 
and who truly understood its unique role in our constitutional system. 
The first quote is from the first Adlai Stevenson, who served as Vice 
President from 1893 to 1897. In his farewell address to the Senate, 
Vice President Stevenson said the following:

       In this Chamber alone are preserved without restraint two 
     essentials of wise legislation and good government: the right 
     of amendment and of debate. Great evils often result from 
     hasty legislation; [but] rarely from the delay which follows 
     full discussion and deliberation.

  Vice President Stevenson understood that deliberation and reasoned 
debate lead to better policy outcomes than the headlong rush to action. 
Delay rarely causes great evils. More commonly, it helps to avoid them.
  The second quote comes from a man familiar to all of us, the late 
Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia. Senator Byrd, who served in 
this body longer than any other Senator in history and who spent the 
vast majority of his 51 years in the Senate in the majority, said this 
about the filibuster and minority rights: ``[A]s long as the Senate 
retains the power to amend and the power of unlimited debate, the 
liberties of the people will remain secure.''
  Senator Byrd recognized that the Senate's cooling function serves as 
a crucial check on transient majority impulses and on the often 
misguided desire to act quickly and to act at all costs.
  The filibuster is a key bulwark against error and against the ability 
of short-lived political majorities to work fundamental changes to our 
Nation. Although it can be deeply frustrating--particularly when 
misused and overused by an intransigent partisan Senate minority--the 
filibuster is an important element of the Senate's character and 
institutional structure. I urge my colleagues to resist calls to 
abolish the filibuster. Whatever we might win in the way of short-term 
political gain would be overwhelmed by the enduring, irreparable damage 
we would do to the Senate as an institution.
  I knew Mike Mansfield. I visited with him in Tokyo when he was the 
Ambassador to Japan. He was a great leader. He was a great human being.
  I also knew very well Senator Robert C. Byrd. There were times when I 
led the fight against labor law reform in 1977, 1978, where I was hard-
pressed to like Senator Byrd because he used every tool at his 
disposal--procedural and otherwise--to try to put that bill forward, 
which would have changed the whole character of America for the worse.
  I was young. I didn't realize how important that man really was. But 
as I continued to serve in the Senate and saw his devotion to the 
Senate, his devotion to the Senate rules, his fairness when he dealt 
with both sides, I got to really respect his understanding of the 
procedural votes.
  I venture to say I don't know that anybody has ever had that full 
capacity as much as he did, with the possible exception of Senator 
Allen of Alabama, who I greatly admired also. He stood right over there 
on that side of the floor and took on his own party time after time. 
The filibuster was a very important instrument at that time, especially 
since Mr. Byrd was a very strong personality. The longer I served in 
the Senate, the more I appreciated Senator Byrd and his devotion to the 
rules, the Constitution, and the Senate itself. He cared for the 
Senate.
  I can remember him sitting right here in this chair. I went up to him 
and I said: Bob, I love you. This was right before he died. He looked 
like he was going to cry, and he said: Orrin, I love you too. That 
meant so much to me because in the early days we were principal 
adversaries. He had more power than I could dream of.
  We ended up winning on labor law reform through a miraculous sixth 
cloture vote. It was a great loss to Senator Byrd. He was not 
particularly enamored with me for the first number of years. But as we 
served together, fought together, and worked together, I gained 
tremendous experience from him and from his ability. I gained a great 
appreciation for Senator Byrd and his abilities and his dedication to 
the rules of the Senate and his dedication to not changing them and 
keeping those rules alive, and those rules have existed for almost a 
century.
  Nobody I know of felt more sad when he had to leave the Senate than I 
did. Keep in mind, that was after a lot of blood and guts fighting here 
on the floor where I, as a young freshman Senator, had to take it on 
the chin regularly because he knew the rules better than I did and he 
had power that was much stronger than anybody on this side of the 
aisle. He had a very forceful presence.
  I will just say this: He believed in the rules, and he lived by the 
rules. Even when he lost, he was a gentleman. I think that man did more 
for the Senate in many ways than very few other Senators did.
  Let's not get so rambunctious about passing anything we want to pass 
around here. Let's think these rules through. The more you think, the 
more you realize these rules are here for a reason, and they have been 
here a long time for a reason and have functioned amazingly well and 
stopped the majority from running over the minority.
  Every once in a while, the Democrats are in the minority, although 
not very often. Over the last number of years, they had the majority 
around 22 times and we had it maybe 6 times. I can say this: There are 
Democrats on the other side who really know these rules are very 
important, and I hope they prevail as we move on to even more difficult 
problems and processes in the future and in the time to come. This is a 
great body. It remains great in large measure because of its rules and 
because of the people who serve here. We should all respect the rules, 
and we should all respect each other for the privilege of serving in 
the U.S. Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page 15766]]


  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                                  Cuba

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today, as I have in the past, in 
defense of the Cuban people, who long for the day when they are free of 
the iron fist of the Castro regime, a day when we can honestly say 
``Cuba es libre'' and mean it. I rise with great concern over the 
trajectory of the policy towards Cuba that President Obama announced on 
December 17 of last year.
  In executing this new policy, the Obama administration has spared no 
generosity towards the dictatorship in Cuba. It commuted the sentences 
of three convicted Cuban spies, including one serving a life sentence 
for murder conspiracy against Americans who died while flying a 
civilian aircraft in international airspace that was struck down by 
Cuban MIGs. It eased a host of travel and trade sanctions in spite of 
the purpose and intent of U.S. law. It removed Cuba from the state 
sponsors of terrorism list, while it continues harboring fugitives from 
the U.S. justice system and members of foreign terrorist organizations.
  Among those people who are in Cuba is Joanne Chesimard, who killed a 
New Jersey State trooper. She was convicted of doing so, escaped, and 
is on the FBI's top 10 most wanted terrorist list. Yet we took them off 
the list of state sponsors of terrorism.
  It negotiated an agreement to establish diplomatic relations with 
Cuba that falls far short of international legal norms in terms of what 
the people at our Embassy can and cannot do inside of Cuba. It upgraded 
Cuba in the trafficking in persons report, despite its continued slave 
labor and human trafficking practices. It even acquiesced to shunning 
dissidents from attending the U.S. Embassy's flag-raising ceremony in 
Havana.
  Yet Cuban dictator Raul Castro refuses to reciprocate any of these 
concessions. To the contrary, Castro has emphasized that he ``will not 
cede 1 millimeter.'' In his speech at last month's United Nations 
General Assembly gathering, he demanded even more, namely for President 
Obama to evade U.S. law as regards sanctions, to shut down Radio and TV 
Marti, which is, in essence, the equivalent of our Voice of Democracy 
so that the Cuban people can get free and unfettered information, to 
end democracy programs, to return the military base at Guantanamo, and 
to pay $1 trillion--not $1 million, not $1 billion, $1 trillion--in 
damages to his regime.
  So today, 10 months later, the metrics of this new policy show it is 
clearly headed in the wrong direction. The Castro family is poised for 
a generational transition in power. The Cuban regime's monopolies are 
being strengthened. Courageous democracy leaders are being relegated to 
obscurity, their voices muffled by the actions of the United States and 
foreign nations alike.
  Political repression has exponentially increased. The number of 
Cubans desperately fleeing the island is rising, and the purpose and 
intent of U.S. law is being circumvented. The trajectory of our policy 
is unacceptable, and I urge President Obama to correct its course.
  While speaking recently to a business gathering in Washington, 
President Obama argued how he believes this new policy is ``creating 
the environment in which a generational change in transition will take 
place in that country.'' But the key question is this: a generational 
change in transition towards what and by whom?
  Cuban democracy leader Antonio Rodiles has concisely expressed his 
concern. He said: ``Legitimizing the [Castro] regime is the path 
contrary to a transition.'' CNN revealed that the Cuban delegation in 
the secret talks that began in mid-2013 with U.S. officials in Ottawa, 
Toronto, and Rome, and which led to the December 17 policy 
announcement, was headed by Colonel Alejandro Castro Espin. Colonel 
Castro Espin is the 49-year-old son of Cuban dictator Raul Castro. In 
both face-to-face meetings between President Obama and Raul Castro this 
year, the first at April's Summit of the Americas in Panama City, a 
summit that is supposed to be a meeting of democracies within the 
Western Hemisphere--Cuba in no way can qualify under those set of 
circumstances--and just last month at the United Nations General 
Assembly in New York, Alejandro was seated next to his father with a 
wide grin.
  Now, Alejandro holds the rank--this is him standing next to Raul 
Castro--of colonel in Cuba's Ministry of the Interior. Now, Cuba's 
Ministry of the Interior is, in essence, the state security that 
oppresses its people, with its hand on the pulse and the trigger of the 
island's intelligence services and repressive organs. It is no secret 
that Raul is grooming Alejandro for a position of power.
  Sadly, his role as interlocutor with the Obama administration seeks 
to further their goal of an intrafamily generational transition within 
the Castro clan, similar to the Assads in Syria and the Kims in Korea. 
We know how well those have worked out. To give you an idea of how 
Colonel Alejandro Castro views the United States, he describes its 
leaders as ``those who seek to subjugate humanity to satisfy their 
interests and hegemonic goals.''
  But, of course, it also takes money to run a totalitarian 
dictatorship, which is why Raul Castro named his son-in-law, General 
Luis Alberto Rodriguez Lopez-Callejas, as head of GAESA, which stands 
for Grupo de Administracion Empresarial, S.A., or, translated, the 
Business Administrative Group.
  GAESA is the holding company of Cuba's Ministry of the Revolutionary 
Armed Forces, Cuba's military. It is the dominant, driving force of the 
island's economy. Established in the 1990s by Raul Castro, it controls 
tourism companies, ranging from the very profitable Gaviota, S.A., 
which runs Cuba's hotels, restaurants, car rentals, and night clubs, to 
TRD Caribe, S.A., which runs the island's retail stores. GAESA, this 
holding company of Cuba's Ministry of the Revolutionary Armed Forces, 
controls virtually all economic transactions in Cuba.
  According to Hotels Magazine, a leading industry publication, GAESA, 
through its subsidiaries, is by far the largest regional hotel 
conglomerate in Latin America. It controls more hotel rooms than Walt 
Disney Company. As McClatchy News explained a few years back, 
``Tourists who sleep in some of Cuba's hotels, drive rental cars, fill 
up their gas tanks, and even those riding in taxis have something in 
common: They are contributing to the [Cuban] Revolutionary Armed 
Forces' bottom line.''
  Now, GAESA became this business powerhouse thanks to the millions of 
Canadian and European tourists who have and continue to visit Cuba each 
year. But these tourists--going over a decade and a half, maybe two--
have done absolutely nothing to promote freedom and democracy in Cuba. 
To the contrary, they have directly financed a system of control and 
repression over the Cuban people, all while enjoying cigars made by 
Cuban workers paid in worthless pesos and having a Cuba Libre, which is 
an oxymoron, on the beaches of Varadero.
  Yet, despite the clear evidence, some want American tourists to now 
double GAESA's bonanza--and, through GAESA, double the regime's 
bonanza. An insightful report this week by Bloomberg Business also 
explained how:

       [Raul's son-in-law, General Rodriguez] is the gatekeeper 
     for most foreign investors, requiring them to do business 
     with his organization if they wish to set up shop on the 
     island. . . . If and when the U.S. finally removes its half-
     century embargo on Cuba, it will be this man--

  Castro's son-in-law--

     who decides which investors get the best deals.

  Of course, it is those investors in the company that ultimately is 
the Cuban Revolutionary Armed Forces, Cuba's military. In other words, 
all the talking points about how lifting the embargo and tourism 
restrictions would somehow benefit the Cuban people are empty and 
misleading rhetoric. It

[[Page 15767]]

would only serve as a money funnel for Castro, Inc.
  Now, here is what over a dozen of Cuba's most renowned prodemocracy 
leaders, including the head of the Ladies in White--the Ladies in White 
are a group of women, composed of mothers, wives, daughters, and other 
relatives of Cuban political prisoners. These are political prisoners 
who basically have languished in Castro's jail, not because they did 
anything violent, not because they broke the common law, as we would 
understand it here in the United States, but because they sought to 
create peaceful change.
  They march every Sunday, dressed in white, holding a gladiola, 
peacefully to church. They are beaten savagely and arrested. And yet 
they do this every Sunday.
  Berta Soler, shown in the middle, former prisoner of conscience Jorge 
Luis Garcia Perez ``Antunez,'' and Sakharov prize recipient Guillermo 
Farinas, who are all pictured here, warned in an open letter to the 
U.S. Congress, dated September 25, 2015:

       The lifting of the embargo, as proposed by the [Obama] 
     Administration, will permit the old ruling elite to transfer 
     their power to their political heirs and families, giving 
     little recourse to the Cuban people in confronting this 
     despotic power. . . .
       Totalitarianism communism will mutate into a totalitarian 
     state adopting minimal market reforms that will serve only to 
     accentuate the existing social inequality in the midst of an 
     increasingly uncertain future.

  These are the people inside of Cuba languishing as they try to create 
change in their country toward peaceful moves toward democracy.
  It is very interesting, as you can see, that despite the talk about 
the Cuban regime creating greater equality, these pro-democracy movers 
in this picture who wrote this letter to Congress are all Afro-Cubans. 
So much for the equality that the regime created and this mysticism or 
romanticism that some have about the regime.
  From an economic perspective, the very concept of trade and 
investment in Cuba is grounded in a misconception about how business 
takes place on the island. Right now, the Commerce Secretary of the 
United States is there talking about business. With whom are you 
talking business? With the regime.
  In most of the world, trade and investment means dealing with 
privately owned or operated corporations. That is not the case in Cuba. 
In Cuba, foreign trade and investment is the exclusive domain of the 
state; for instance, the Castro family. There are no exceptions.
  In the last five decades, every single foreign trade transaction with 
Cuba has been with the Castro regime or an individual acting on behalf 
of the regime. The regime's exclusivity regarding trade and investment 
is enshrined in article 18 of Castro's 1976 Constitution. He changed 
the Constitution and gave exclusivity to the state as it relates to 
trade and investment. That has not changed.
  Moreover, there is no real private sector in Cuba. We often hear the 
Obama administration and the media refer to Cuba's small ``self-
employment'' licenses as private enterprise, which implies private 
ownership. Yet Cuba's self-employed licensees have no ownership rights 
whatsoever--be it to their artistic or intellectual outputs, commodity 
that they produce or personal service that they offer.
  Licensees have no legal entity to transfer, sell or leverage. They 
don't even own the equipment essential to their self-employment. More 
to the point, licensees have no right to engage in foreign trade, seek 
or receive foreign investments.
  Effectually, licensees continue to work for the state. When the state 
decides such jobs are no longer needed--and we have seen this 
experiment before--licensees are shut down without recourse, which has 
happened several times in the past. Why? Because when you permit 
somebody to have a little barbershop and people congregate at the 
barbershop and begin to talk, that is a threat to the regime. When you 
permit people to assemble legally under the law, even if it is for the 
purposes of getting, for example, a haircut or eating at a restaurant--
although that is normally for foreigners, not for locals--the bottom 
line is that when that gets out of hand, the regime, as it has in the 
past, will stop it. So this suggestion that there is this private 
enterprise is such a huge false fact.
  The fact is, we already know what expanded U.S. trade with Cuba would 
look like. Since the passage of the 2000 Trade Sanctions Reform and 
Export Enhancement Act, over $5 billion in U.S. agricultural and 
medical products have been sold to Cuba. It is, however, an unpleasant 
fact--and facts are stubborn--that all those sales by more than 250 
privately owned U.S. companies were made to only one Cuban buyer: the 
Castro regime.
  Don't believe me. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
itself: ``The key difference in exporting to Cuba, compared to other 
countries in the region, is that all U.S. agricultural exports must be 
channeled through
one Cuban government agency, ALIMPORT.''
  Exporting to Cuba is not about trading with small- or mid-sized 
farmers, private businesses and manufacturers around the island, as 
some of my colleagues would have Americans believe. So it should be no 
surprise that U.S. products end up on the shelves of regime-owned 
stores that accept only what? Hard currencies. Meaning what? The U.S. 
dollar or a euro--with huge price markups.
  Shoppers at these ``dollar stores'' are mainly tourists or those 
Cubans who happen to have U.S. families who will send them money, but 
at the end of the day, those stores have these huge markups. And where 
does the money go to? Not a private enterprise but the regime.
  Little imported food or medicine ever makes it into stores where 
Cubans shop. Neither is it available on ration cards. It requires a 
tremendous leap of faith or belief in some extreme and unprecedented 
economic model--call it dictator-down economics, from my perspective--
to argue or theorize that current or more U.S. sales to Castro's 
monopolies have or can ever benefit the Cuban people.
  The facts prove otherwise, as has been the case with sales of U.S. 
food and medicine. So what makes us believe expanded trade with the 
United States would be any different? As a matter of fact, since 
December 17 of this past year--when the agreements between the United 
States and Cuba were announced and despite the Obama administration's 
efforts to improve relations with the Castro regime, which have 
included an increase in travel and eased payment terms for agricultural 
sales--U.S. sales to ALIMPORT, that Cuban regime company which they 
control, during the same period have plummeted by over 50 percent. So 
the question is, Why would even more concessions make this manipulation 
by the Castro regime's monopolies any different?
  Let's stop talking about the embargo in vague terms. The embargo, as 
codified by the U.S. Congress into law, simply requires the fulfillment 
of some very basic conditions which are consistent with the democratic 
and human rights standards of 34 out of the 35 nations in the Western 
Hemisphere--Cuba remaining the sole exception and, of course, 
ironically Venezuela heading into a downward spiral with a lot of 
influence by the Castro regime.
  When President Obama or some of my colleagues call for lifting the 
embargo, they are asking Congress to unilaterally discard these 
conditions. So I want to ask them, which of these conditions--codified 
in U.S. law--do they disagree with or oppose that they are willing to 
unilaterally discard them? Which one are they willing to live without?
  Is it, for example, the condition that Cuba ``legalizes all political 
activity'' or the condition that Cuba ``releases all political 
prisoners and allows for investigations of Cuban prisons by appropriate 
international human rights organizations''? As I understood part of 
this agreement, the Red Cross--I think it was the International Red 
Cross--was going to be able to go into Cuban prisons. The regime said: 
Not interested in that.
  Is it the condition that Cuba ``dissolves the present Department of 
State Security in the Cuban Ministry of the

[[Page 15768]]

Interior, including the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution. . 
. . ''? What is the Committee for the Defense of the Revolution? It is 
a block-watch entity in every neighborhood, in every village, in every 
hamlet inside of Cuba whose only job is to spy on their neighbors, and 
when their neighbor says something critical of the regime, they get 
ratted out.
  Is it the rapid response brigades? What are those? Those are state 
security dressed as civilians who go take people such as the Ladies in 
White--people like these three pro-democracy individuals--and arrest 
them so it seems as if the populace is the one doing it when it is 
state security.
  Is it the condition that Cuba ``makes a public commitment to 
organizing free and fair elections for a new government'' or the 
condition that Cuba ``makes public commitments to and is making 
demonstrable progress in establishing an independent judiciary; 
respecting internationally recognized human rights and basic freedoms 
as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which 
Cuba is a signatory nation; allows the establishment of independent 
trade unions as set forth in conventions 87 and 98 of the International 
Labor Organization'' among others.
  Is it the condition that Cuba give ``adequate assurances that it will 
allow the speedy and efficient distribution of assistance to the Cuban 
people'' or the condition that Cuba is ``effectively guaranteeing the 
rights of free speech and freedom of the press, including granting 
permits to privately owned media and telecommunications companies to 
operate in Cuba''?
  Is it the condition that Cuba is ``assuring the right to private 
property'' or ``taking appropriate steps to return to United States 
citizens (and entities which are 50 percent or more beneficially owned 
by United States citizens) property taken by the Cuban Government from 
such citizens and entities on or after January 1, 1959, or to provide 
equitable compensation to such citizens and entities for such 
property''?
  Is it the condition that Cuba has ``extradited or otherwise rendered 
to the United States all persons sought by the United States Department 
of Justice for crimes committed in the United States''?
  Which one of these conditions do they not agree with? Are they all 
willing to just throw them all out, require nothing?
  If President Obama, as media reports indicate, takes the 
unprecedented step of abstaining from voting against a Cuban resolution 
in the United Nations General Assembly criticizing our own Nation's 
law--which is what the Cuban embargo is--he would be disavowing these 
basic conditions because these basic conditions are what is written 
into the law. I know. At the time, I was one of the authors who wrote 
the law in the House of Representatives.
  Think about the horrible message that turning a blind eye to these 
basic conditions in U.S. law would send to the Cuban people about the 
priorities of the United States. Think of the horrible message it would 
send to Cuba's courageous democracy leaders.
  Since December 17, scores of foreign dignitaries, businessmen, and 
Members of the U.S. Congress have descended upon Havana to meet with 
Raoul Castro and his cronies, while sidelining Cuba's courageous 
dissenters.
  As independent journalist and blogger Yoani Sanchez lamented, ``A 
true shower of presidents, foreign ministers and deputies has 
intensified over Cuba without daily life feeling any kind of relief 
from such illustrious presences.''
  Sadly, as the AP reported, ``more than 20 U.S. lawmakers have come to 
Cuba since February without meeting with opposition groups that once 
were an obligatory stop for congressional delegations.''
  The reason U.S. lawmakers don't meet with human rights activists and 
political dissidents is because if they do, then they don't get a 
meeting with Raoul Castro. So I guess the photo op with Raoul Castro is 
more important than meeting with human rights activists and political 
dissidents.
  Perhaps the biggest affront was during the flag-raising ceremony 
during the opening ceremony of the U.S. Embassy in Havana--to which no 
Cuban dissidents were invited. The Secretary of State said publically 
this was due to ``a lack of space'' and that it was a ``government-to-
government'' function. Yet images clearly showed there was plenty of 
space and lots of nongovernmental figures on the invitee list.
  Can you imagine what the world would be like today if this had been 
the attitude of the United States toward Sakharov, Solzhenitsyn, Vaclav 
Havel, Lech Walesa, and Nelson Mandela?
  Meanwhile, adding insult to injury, Cuba's courageous dissident 
leaders--now neglected by the administration and congressional 
supporters of the new policy and even further neglected by foreign 
dignitaries and unscrupulous businessmen searching for a profit at 
whatever cost--are facing a dramatic increase in repression. Since 
December 17, when President Obama announced his new policy, Raoul 
Castro's dictatorship has exponentially increased the number of 
political arrests, beatings, and detentions. Just between January and 
March of this year, politically motivated arrests increased nearly 70 
percent, from 178 arrests in the former month to 610 in the latter.
  According to the Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National 
Reconciliation--an internationally recognized human rights watchdog--
the total number of political arrests during the first 9 months of this 
year were 5,146. In just 9 months, these 5,146 political arrests 
surpassed the year-long tallies recorded for 2010, which was 2,074; 
2011, which was 4,123; and 2015 is tragically on pace to become one of 
the most repressive years in recent history.
  The official number of September arrests alone--the month just 
passed--was 822, the most in 15 months. They include Danilo Maldonado, 
a 31-year-old artist known as El Sexto who was imprisoned on December 
25 of this past year, one week after the new policy was announced. El 
Sexto was arrested for painting the names Fidel and Raul on two pigs, 
which was considered an act of ``contempt.'' He remains imprisoned 
without trial or sentence or any justice. Amnesty International has 
recognized him as a prisoner of conscience.
  They also include Zaqueo Baez Guerrero, Ismael Bonet Rene and Maria 
Josefa Acon Sardinas, a member of The Ladies in White. These three 
dissidents sought to approach Pope Francis during his recent mass in 
Havana to ask for his solidarity with Cuba's political prisoners and 
democracy movement. They were dragged away and arrested under the eyes 
of the international media. They have been on a hunger and thirst 
strike since September 20 and are being held at the infamous secret 
police center for ``investigations'' at Aldabo and 100th Street in 
Havana. I am very concerned about their well-being.
  They also include the case of Digna Rodriguez Ibanez, an Afro-Cuban 
member of The Ladies in White in Santa Clara, who was attacked by 
Castro regime agents and pelted with tar. That is right, with tar. Also 
included is Eralisis Frometa Polanco, another member of The Ladies in 
White, who was pregnant and forcefully aborted due to the violent blows 
to the stomach she received during a beating for her peaceful activism, 
and Daisy Cuello Basulto, also a member of The Ladies in White, whose 
daughter was arrested, stripped naked, and forced to urinate in front 
of male state security officers as a means of tormenting her mother.
  For 24 straight Sundays in a row, Cuban dissidents have tried to 
peacefully demonstrate after Mass under the slogan ``Todos 
Marchamos''--we all march. And for 24 Sundays in a row they have been 
intercepted, violently beaten, and arrested.
  This image is of Cuban dissident leader Antonio Rodiles, a 43-year-
old intellectual, after having his face literally shattered during one 
of those peaceful Sunday marches. Yet, despite the tremendous 
indignities at the hands of the Castro regime, they remain undeterred 
in their struggle for freedom and democracy for all Cubans. Rather than 
shunning these courageous

[[Page 15769]]

individuals, the United States should be embracing them.
  On the same day the news hit that 882 political arrests were made in 
September alone by the Castro regime, Secretary Kerry was in Chile 
talking about some marine life agreement with Cuba. What about the 
human lives in Cuba suffering under this oppression? The Obama 
administration's policy seems to be bringing little comfort to the 
Cuban people generally, as they continue to flee by land, by air, and 
the perilous journey by sea across the Florida straits, where countless 
Cubans have lost their lives in search of freedom.
  Nearly 32,000 Cubans entered the United States in the first 9 months 
of the fiscal year that ended on September 30, up from about 26,000 
migrants who entered last fiscal year, according to the Department of 
Homeland Security. Fewer than 7,500 Cubans came in 2010.
  Finally, Mr. President, as one of the authors of the Cuban Liberty 
and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996, known as the Libertad Act, and 
having served as a manager in the conference committee, I am concerned 
that the recent regulations and actions being taken by the Treasury and 
Commerce Departments contravene the purpose and intent of the law. As 
the final conference committee report of the Libertad Act made clear, 
``It is the intent of the committee of conference that all economic 
sanctions in force are March 1, 1996, shall remain in effect until they 
are either suspended or terminated pursuant to the authorities provided 
in section 204 of this (requiring a Presidential determination that a 
Democratic transition is under way in Cuba).''
  Those are the conditions I had previously addressed. The report also 
states that ``the explicit mandates in this legislation make clear 
congressional intent that U.S. law be enforced fully and, thereby, 
provide a basis for strict congressional oversights of executive branch 
enforcement measures henceforth.''
  In furtherance of this intent, the prohibition on U.S. assistance and 
financing of agricultural sales to Cuba, the prohibition on additional 
imports from Cuba, and the prohibition of travel relating to tourist 
activities in the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 
2000 are explicit, clear and leave no room for exceptions.
  These provisions were precisely written to deny U.S. funds to the 
Castro regime's repressive machinery and prohibiting them from being 
funneled through Castro's monopolies. Yet that is the direction--
perhaps unintended--the new regulations are headed in, with the tragic, 
repressive consequences on full display.
  Any hope that President Obama's goodwill would elicit a different 
tone from Raul Castro was further diminished by the Cuban dictator's 
speech to the U.N. General Assembly last month. Castro dedicated his 
17-minute speech almost entirely to bashing the policies of the United 
States from Latin America to Eastern Europe to the Middle East. He 
praised Latin American autocrats in the mold of Hugo Chavez, sided with 
Putin and Assad, criticized representative democracy, and dismissed 
human rights as a ``utopia.'' While President Obama referred to the 
concessions he has already made in his remarks to the U.N. General 
Assembly, Raul Castro audaciously demanded even more.
  So let me close by saying we all remember the message President Obama 
sent to the foes of freedom in his first inaugural speech. He said, 
``[W]e will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.'' I 
urge the President to follow his own doctrine and reconsider some of 
the unmerited and unreciprocated generosity in this new policy, for 
Raul Castro's fist clearly remains clenched, yet the President's hand 
is still fully extended.
  The President claims those who don't agree with his Cuba policy are 
stuck in the past, but it is the Castro regime that is stuck in the 
past, still living their misguided Cold War dreams in a world that 
hasn't insisted they move forward. And when you own everything in the 
country--which the regime does--why would you be willing to give it up 
after 50-some-odd years? Instead, we are rewarding them for their 
intransigence. Unless we challenge them, we will not see change.
  The fact is that hope and change do not come easily. They do not just 
happen. Like any parent with a child, they won't change unless you 
challenge them and give them a reason. Like Congress, it needs to be 
challenged to change. And so with Cuba the world needs to challenge the 
regime or change will never come--not give in and give everything. To 
do so only strengthens their resolve to hold on to their dictatorship 
and prolong the day when we can truly say to the world that ``Cuba es 
Libre''--Cuba is free.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, while he is still on the floor, I want to 
thank the Senator from New Jersey for his remarks. He is clearly one of 
the institution's experts on Cuba and the Castro regime, and I think we 
need to pay attention to what he is saying.
  Unfortunately, we seem to be dealing with other countries and other 
regimes as we hope they will be, not as they are in reality. That was 
an important set of remarks, so I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, yesterday the United States Senate voted to advance 
the National Defense Authorization Act--what we call the NDAA. I worry 
sometimes we talk in Senate-speak, and we don't actually communicate 
what legislation is, so I want to talk a little about what this 
defense--or national security--legislation is and why it is so 
important that it passes.
  After passing both the House and the Senate earlier this summer, 
colleagues worked in a conference committee led by Mac Thornberry from 
Texas, chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services, and Senator 
John McCain, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services. I 
know they had a tough job in reconciling those two different versions 
of the legislation, but now they have come forward with strong 
bipartisan legislation that supports our military and our families.
  My dad served for 31 years in the United States Air Force. He flew B-
17s in World War II in the Army Air Corps. I proudly grew up as an Air 
Force brat, so this is personal to me, as I know it is to the Presiding 
Officer, who has served in the Marine Corps for a long time and for 
whom this is a very personal issue as well.
  In my State of Texas we are very proud of our connection with the 
military. We claim--I am not sure it is exactly true but we make this 
claim--that one out of every ten persons in uniform calls Texas home. I 
think that is probably roughly correct, but we want to make sure that 
through this legislation we do our job to make sure our military gets 
the equipment and the training they need in order to perform the 
dangerous missions we ask them to perform here in the United States and 
around the world. That is what this legislation does.
  For example, the bill authorizes funding for the Corpus Christi Army 
Depot. This installation is a true national treasure because what it 
does is to refurbish the rotary-wing aircraft that come from overseas. 
After they are battered and beaten up, they come back and make them 
like new. So when these army helicopters serve overseas, they come back 
for a pit stop in Corpus Christi at the depot, and they make sure they 
are ready for the next challenge our military faces. This legislation 
we will be voting on at 2 p.m. this afternoon authorizes funding for 
the construction of a new facility at the depot where helicopter 
engines and transmissions can continue to be repaired, and we can 
continue to equip, as we should, our military.
  This Defense authorization bill also authorizes critical military 
construction, such as the barracks at the Air Force basic training 
program at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, where thousands of 
airmen start their service to this Nation every year.
  That was the first assignment for my dad, at Lackland Air Force Base 
in San Antonio, TX, when I was a freshman in high school. I have had 
the privilege of

[[Page 15770]]

attending some of the graduation ceremonies there, and they are really 
an inspiration. You see this whole football field full of trainees 
learning, through their basic training, how to become airmen and to 
serve our country in the U.S. Air Force.
  The real people and real installations are dependent upon this 
authorization bill becoming law. This defense legislation is integral 
to ensuring our military is well resourced, well trained, and ready for 
action when called upon. Importantly, this legislation also helps 
clarify the United States' long-term defense priorities and authorizes 
funds to equip our military to handle the multiple evolving conflicts 
around the world.
  I am reminded that in August I visited the Pacific Command with some 
of our colleagues here in the Senate, where we asked Admiral Harris, 
the four-star commander of the Pacific Command, what keeps him up at 
night. What are you most concerned about? At the top of his list was 
North Korea, governed by a volatile dictator with nuclear weapons and 
intercontinental ballistic missiles. I know General Dunford, the new 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the former Commandant of the 
Marine Corps, had a little different ordering. He put Russia at the 
top, I think, then China, North Korea, and then ISIL, if I am not 
mistaken. But regardless of the exact order, we know there are numerous 
threats to world peace and regional security.
  We learned the lesson on 9/11 that what happens overseas doesn't stay 
overseas. It directly affects our security right here at home too. That 
is why this legislation is so critical.
  This Defense authorization bill also includes provisions that fund 
efforts to counter Russian aggression in Eastern Europe, where Vladimir 
Putin is trying to intimidate and coerce countries that are part of 
NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and threatening them with 
the kind of aggression we have seen in Crimea and Ukraine. This bill 
helps counter that aggression. It also provides resources to help train 
and assist our partner nations in the Asia-Pacific, it provides help 
for Israeli missile defense and anti-tunneling defense, and it supports 
our partners in Afghanistan and throughout the Middle East to combat 
rampant terrorist activity.
  So what we do here in the Senate and in this Congress and here in 
Washington, DC, is important to our national security and the safety of 
our Nation. That is why for over 50 years Congress has made passing the 
Defense authorization bill--what we sometimes refer to as the NDAA, the 
National Defense Authorization Act--that is why we have always made 
that a priority. All of us, regardless of political affiliation or 
ideology, believe it is fundamentally important to make sure our men 
and women in uniform, who are fighting on our behalf or standing ready 
to fight when called upon, faced with unprecedented threats around the 
world--we need to make sure, as a moral obligation, that they have what 
they need and that they know we are solidly behind them. That is what 
signal this legislation sends.
  Now we have a chance to send this to the President--after we vote on 
this legislation--send it to him for his signature. But here is where I 
am troubled. President Obama has indicated he may well veto this 
legislation. And what, we might ask, would be his reason? Is there some 
provision of the legislation that he finds so repugnant or difficult 
that he wants to veto the legislation? Frankly, what the President and 
the White House have said is--they claim the funding levels outlined in 
the Defense authorization bill are ``irresponsible.'' But get this: 
These same funding levels are reflected in the President's own budget 
request. So we gave the President what he asked for, and he calls them 
``irresponsible.'' What kind of hypocrisy is that?
  I hope the President and his counselors at the White House will 
reconsider playing fast and loose with support for our troops and this 
important piece of legislation. This bill is bipartisan. We can have 
our fights over all sorts of things--and Heaven knows we will--in this 
polarized political environment, but if there is one thing on which we 
all ought to agree on a bipartisan basis, it is that this legislation 
needs to pass.
  This support for our troops in an ever-dangerous world should be a 
priority. Fortunately, many of our Democratic friends understand this, 
and they have worked with us, and that is the way it should be. So I 
hope they aren't tempted to block this legislation in order to give 
cover to the President and to prevent him from being held accountable 
for his own decisions. This is not a time to play games, particularly 
with our national security and our men and women in uniform at stake.
  Today our Armed Forces face a world with growing challenges in almost 
every corner of the world. As a matter of fact, I think the Director of 
National Intelligence, James Clapper, said he doesn't remember a time 
in his long career in the Air Force and now in the intelligence 
community where the world has faced more diverse threats and 
challenges. And, like it or not, the United States is the point of the 
spear in addressing those challenges. If the United States doesn't step 
up and lead, there is a vacuum created which does nothing but encourage 
these tyrants, these thugs, the dictators and other people who will 
take advantage of that void.
  We can't tie our own hands behind our backs while asking our troops 
to fly into harm's way to support efforts against ISIS and Syria and 
Iraq or sail to the edges of the Pacific to keep Chinese ambitions in 
check or to accompany Afghan soldiers in deadly firefights against a 
resurgent Taliban. Right now, as I stand in this Chamber, we have 
Americans--soldiers, sailors, and marines--who are putting their lives 
at risk to defend this Nation. By definition, when they are deployed 
overseas, they are far away from home, separated from their loved ones 
and their families. We ought to always remember that for every man or 
woman who wears the uniform, there is a family back home who is serving 
our Nation as well who deserves our gratitude and our support. The last 
thing our military needs is a reason to question the strength of our 
convictions, and they need Congress to support them.
  Our adversaries watch this sort of thing, too, because what they read 
into political dysfunction--particularly when it comes to something as 
important as our national security--is they see encouraging signs that 
maybe they can push the envelope a little further. Maybe they can 
challenge the United States and our allies a little more. Maybe they 
can grab a little more property, real estate. Maybe they can plant a 
flag someplace they otherwise would not because they see in our 
actions--particularly on something as important as this--a certain 
reticence, perhaps not a willingness to lead but, rather, an America 
retreating from our international responsibilities, and that is 
dangerous. That is dangerous.
  I encourage all of our colleagues to simply vote once more in support 
of this legislation so we can send it to the President's desk. What he 
does is his responsibility. This legislation passed last June with more 
than 70 votes. If we can send this bill to the President with that same 
sort of overwhelming bipartisan support, the President won't be able to 
veto this legislation because he knows his veto can be overridden by a 
two-thirds vote in the House and the Senate.
  So let's do our part together to show our men and women in uniform 
that our support for them will never ever waiver.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I appreciate the words of my friend from 
Texas. I just want to point out that our military is fully funded and 
that some of us believe our military is so important that it ought to 
be funded by real dollars, not make-believe smoke and mirrors.
  I have a press release from the ranking member, the top Democrat on 
the Armed Services Committee, who said he opposes using budget gimmicks 
to fund the Pentagon, and he declined to sign the NDAA, which is very 
unusual.

[[Page 15771]]

  If we really care about our military, and everyone does, we ought to 
fund with real dollars, not make-believe money--this one called OCO.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this press release be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 Reed Opposes Fundamentally Flawed NDAA


Top Democrat on Armed Services Committee opposes using budget gimmicks 
     to fund the Pentagon & declines to sign NDAA conference report

       Washington, DC.--Today, U.S. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), the 
     Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee announced that 
     he will not sign the Conference Report for the Fiscal Year 
     2016 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Reed opposes 
     the Conference Report because it uses an inefficient budget 
     gimmick that underfunds the Pentagon's base budget while 
     inflating the emergency war spending account known as the 
     Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) fund, which is exempted 
     from Budget Control Act spending caps. As a result, about one 
     out of every six dollars in this year's NDAA, nearly $90 
     billion, is counted off the books. ``There are many needed 
     reforms in the Conference Committee Report, but the use of 
     emergency war funds does not realistically provide for the 
     long-term support of our forces,'' said Senator Reed. ``I 
     cannot sign this Conference Report because it fails to 
     responsibly fix the sequester and provide our troops with the 
     support they deserve.'' ``I remain committed to working 
     toward a more balanced, responsible way to fix the sequester 
     so our defense and domestic needs are met. Achieving that 
     goal is essential to the security and financial well-being of 
     the American people. The Department of Defense is critical to 
     national security, but so are the FBI, Homeland Security, the 
     Department of Justice, and many other federal agencies that 
     help keep Americans safe,'' Reed concluded.


                              Highway Bill

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I came over here because the American 
people keep hearing: Government shutdown. Government shutdown. What is 
going to happen?
  The opinion of Congress is the lowest of all times because we are not 
doing our job. We are not doing our work.
  We are facing three possible shutdowns.
  The first one is the possible shutdown of our entire transportation 
program, and that has 22 days left. On this one, I want to praise the 
Senate because we stepped up, Democrats and Republicans together, and 
we said: We are not going to let this happen; we are going to work 
together and get a bill. I am going to talk about that in a bit.
  The second date we face is in early November, when, if we don't raise 
the debt ceiling so we can pay for the programs everyone here voted 
for, the government will shut down and we will become, frankly, the 
people who have overseen for the first time a bankruptcy. We have to 
raise the debt ceiling. As Ronald Reagan said very eloquently--I don't 
have his exact quote, but he said something like this: Even the thought 
of not paying our bills, even the thought of not raising the debt 
ceiling should be avoided. But we face that made-up crisis.
  The third one is December 11, where all of our budget has to be 
looked at and we have to come to some agreement on the fair level of 
spending for both defense and nondefense and all the things we do.
  I am here to talk about the first deadline because I am intimately 
involved with this as the ranking member on the Environment and Public 
Works Committee. I want to start off by praising my chairman, Jim 
Inhofe. He and I don't see eye to eye on a lot of things, but we sure 
do when it comes to transportation.
  One hundred days ago--my colleague knows this--the Senate Environment 
and Public Works Committee unanimously approved the DRIVE Act. It has 
been 68 days since the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 65 to 34--
that is an overwhelming vote in a bipartisan way--and now we are down 
to 22 days before we shut down. People can say: Why are we going to 
shut down when the Senate has done its job? Because the House hasn't 
done its job. It is inexcusable.
  If we can find the bipartisan will to work together to pass a long-
term transportation bill that increases funding for roads and bridges 
and transit projects, certainly they can find it in the House, and they 
should find that consensus there. We are up against this deadline. We 
keep hearing that the House--or I did--is going to act. Now, as far as 
we know, they have put off the markup of the bill until the day before 
we have a shutdown. That is ridiculous.
  I call on Republicans and Democrats over there to come together, just 
as we came together. It is painful here on so many issues, but we found 
the political will to do the right thing. Where is the House bill?
  In September, 68 organizations sent a letter to the House calling on 
the House to pass the Transportation bill. Look who signed this. I will 
mention a few: the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce, the Associated General Contractors, the Travel 
Association, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Laborers International 
Union, the American Bus Association, the AAA, the American Trucking 
Association, the Society of Civil Engineers, the American Public Works 
Association, the National Railroad Construction and Maintenance 
Association. This is pretty amazing. This goes on and on.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this list be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                               September 11, 2015.
       Dear Representative: The undersigned organizations 
     representing every sector of the U.S. economy urge all 
     members of the House to pass a six-year reauthorization of 
     the federal surface transportation program in 2015 that 
     increases investment in highway and public transportation 
     improvements.
       America's transportation infrastructure network is the 
     foundation on which the nation's economy functions. American 
     manufacturers, industries and businesses depend on this 
     complex system to move people, products and services every 
     day of the year. It is also a direct contributor to enhanced 
     personal mobility and quality of life for all Americans.
       The Senate passed a multi-year surface transportation bill 
     with substantial bipartisan support in July. It is now 
     incumbent on the House of Representatives to keep the 
     reauthorization process moving forward to ensure a six year 
     bill is enacted before the latest short-term program 
     extension expires October 29.
       The U.S. economy and all Americans require a surface 
     transportation infrastructure network that can keep pace with 
     growing demands. A six-year federal commitment to prioritize 
     and invest in our aging infrastructure and safety needs is 
     essential to achieve this goal.
       Temporary program extensions and eight years of recurring 
     Highway Trust Fund revenue crises do not provide a path to 
     future economic growth, jobs and increased competitiveness. 
     We urge you to end this cycle of uncertainty by advocating 
     and voting for a six-year surface transportation program 
     reauthorization bill during 2015.
           Sincerely,
       National Association of Manufacturers, U.S. Chamber of 
     Commerce, American Road & Transportation Builders 
     Association, Associated General Contractors of America, U.S. 
     Travel Association, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, 
     International Union of Operating Engineers, Laborers 
     International Union of North America, Building America's 
     Future, AAA, National Retail Federation, American Association 
     of State Highway and Transportation Officials, American 
     Public Transportation Association, American Trucking 
     Association, American Society of Civil Engineers.
       American Public Works Association, American Highway Users 
     Alliance, National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA), 
     Associated Equipment Distributors, American Concrete Pressure 
     Pipe Association, American Association of Port Authorities, 
     Coalition for America's Gateways & Trade Corridors, National 
     Stone, Sand & Gravel Association, Industrial Minerals 
     Association--North America, Auto Care Association, National 
     Recreation and Park Association, National Electrical 
     Contractors Association (NECA), National Tank Truck Carriers, 
     Inc., American Concrete Pavement Association, North American 
     Equipment Dealers Association, American Bus Association.
       Transportation Intermediaries Association, Association of 
     Equipment Manufacturers, National Steel Bridge Alliance 
     (NSBA), Metropolitan Planning Council, Chicago, American 
     Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), American Concrete 
     Pipe Association, Institute of Makers of Explosives, National 
     Safety Council, National Precast Concrete Association, The 
     National Industrial Transportation League, Corn Refiners 
     Association, Specialized Carriers & Rigging Association, 
     National Asphalt Pavement Association, Construction & 
     Demolition Recycling Association, American Council of 
     Engineering Companies.

[[Page 15772]]

       Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute, Governors Highway 
     Safety Association, North America's Building Trades Unions, 
     National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), 
     International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association, Energy 
     Equipment and Infrastructure Alliance, American Iron and 
     Steel Institute, American Traffic Safety Services 
     Association, The Association of Union Constructors (TAUC), 
     Asphalt Emulsion Manufacturers Association, Asphalt Recycling 
     & Reclaiming Association, International Slurry Surfacing 
     Association, Airports Council International-North America.
       American Rental Association, Commercial Vehicle Safety 
     Alliance, Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, National 
     Railroad Construction & Maintenance Association (NRCMA), 
     Motorcycle Riders Foundation, Intelligent Transportation 
     Society of America (ITS America), Farm Equipment 
     Manufacturers Association, NATSO, Representing America's 
     Travel Plazas and Truckstops, National Association of 
     Development Organizations (NADO), National Utility 
     Contractors Association (NUCA).

  Mrs. BOXER. All of these extraordinary organizations are behind the 
Senate bill--the Governors Highway Safety Association, American 
Concrete. This is America together. They are calling on us. And this is 
not a partisan issue.
  It is incumbent on the House to keep the reauthorization process 
moving forward and not wait until October 29 when we are on top of the 
deadline and we have to do another extension. We are all sick of it. 
Let me just say it doesn't work.
  If you went to the bank and wanted to buy a house and they said, ``I 
have great news from you, Mr. and Mrs. America: You have been approved 
for a loan, but it is only for a year,'' you are not going to buy the 
house. It is the same way with our State highway people. They are not 
going to build a new highway or fix a road or invest in a transit 
program if they only have a few days of an extension that they can rely 
on. They want us to have a long-term bill. We passed the 6-year bill 
here with 3 years of pay-fors.
  We have seen the organizations. I am saying that our people who drive 
on roads are Democrats, Republicans, Independents, liberals, 
conservatives, rightwing, leftwing, ``middlewing.'' It doesn't matter. 
This is one issue where we can come together, and the Senate proved we 
can come together. So our words--and I really speak for everyone. I 
know. I talked to Senator Inhofe, and he knows I am speaking today. The 
words we have for the House: Just do it. Just do it. If we can do it, 
you can do it. Short-term extensions don't work.
  I gave the example of going for a mortgage. You are not going to 
invest in a house if you can only get a year's mortgage. The same thing 
is true if you want to buy a new car. If you go to the bank and they 
say, ``Great news: You are approved, but it is only for 3 months, or 90 
days,'' you are not going to buy the car. It is the same way for our 
States.
  I have a chart--I don't have it with me now--that shows how much the 
States rely on the Federal Government. I don't have it blown up, but I 
am going to go through this. It is so interesting. We have States that 
rely on the Federal Government highway program for anywhere from 30 
percent all the way up to 100 percent. Many States rely on the Federal 
Government for over 70 percent. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that this list of the percentages by State be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


  Federal Share of Each State's Capital Outlays for Highway & Bridge 
                                Projects


        State                                                Percentage
Rhode Island........................................................102
Alaska...............................................................93
Montana..............................................................87
Vermont..............................................................86
South Carolina.......................................................79
Hawaii...............................................................79
North Dakota.........................................................78
Wyoming..............................................................73
South Dakota.........................................................71
Connecticut..........................................................71
New Mexico...........................................................70
Idaho................................................................68
Alabama..............................................................68
New Hampshire........................................................68
Missouri.............................................................65
Mississippi..........................................................65
Colorado.............................................................64
Minnesota............................................................64
Oklahoma.............................................................63
Arkansas.............................................................62
Georgia..............................................................62
Tennessee............................................................62
West Virginia........................................................61
Iowa.................................................................59
Ohio.................................................................58
Virginia.............................................................57
Maine................................................................57
Wisconsin............................................................55
Oregon...............................................................54
Indiana..............................................................54
New York.............................................................54
District of Columbia.................................................52
California...........................................................49
Nevada...............................................................49
Arizona..............................................................49
Nebraska.............................................................49
Kansas...............................................................49
Louisiana............................................................48
North Carolina.......................................................48
Maryland.............................................................48
Texas................................................................47
Pennsylvania.........................................................46
Washington...........................................................45
Kentucky.............................................................44
Michigan.............................................................41
Delaware.............................................................41
Florida..............................................................39
Illinois.............................................................39
Utah.................................................................38
Massachusetts........................................................37
New Jersey...........................................................35

  We know Delaware is 41 percent reliant on the Federal Government; 
Rhode Island is 100 percent reliant on the Federal Government; Vermont, 
80 percent; Hawaii, 79 percent; Alaska, 93 percent.
  This is something that is a partnership. This is a partnership. We 
work together with the States, but we are so disadvantaging our States. 
In my State, it is about 50-50. We raise our resources about 50 
percent. But do you know what the other 50 percent means to California, 
because we have almost 40 million people? It is $4 billion a year. We 
can't do our program on our own.
  As my friend Jim Inhofe says, it is a need that he feels as a 
conservative he can support. When you read the Constitution, we are one 
Nation; we are connected. We need to build these roads.
  There are over 61,000 bridges that are structurally deficient. We 
know this. We have worked together to fix this problem, because we 
know, in a way, it is a moral issue. Once you know something is 
dangerous, you have to fix it. We did with the Senate bill. We call on 
the House to do the same. Now, 50 percent of our roads are in less than 
good condition. This is not news to most of our people. They understand 
it. They drive on these roads. It takes a toll on their cars. I forget 
the exact amount, but I think it is about $1,000 a year of costs for 
people who use their cars a lot from roads that are not in good 
condition.
  Every day, there are over 215 million crossings by motorists on 
structurally deficient bridges in every single State in our great 
Union. Let's show you a list of some of these bridges that are in need 
of repair: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California--our Golden Gate 
Bridge, our famous, incredible bridge. I crossed that bridge when I 
lived in Marin County every day for work. Seriously, the bottom line is 
that we need to act. Connecticut, District of Columbia, Colorado, 
Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa--these are bridges in 
great need of repair. Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New 
Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York--the Brooklyn Bridge, that 
iconic bridge, is dangerous and in need of repair. In North Carolina, 
there is a Greensboro bridge. Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania--the 
Benjamin Franklin Bridge--Pennsylvania is the home of the chairman over 
there. In Oregon--the ranking member--there is the Columbia River 
Crossing. The Columbia River Crossing and the Benjamin Franklin Bridge 
are in the homes of the chairman and ranking member of the committee 
who have the obligation to get this done. There is South Carolina, 
Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin.
  I have rushed this, but I don't want to spend the time naming every 
bridge. But this is where we are. A multiyear surface transportation 
bill is going to solve these problems, and we are going to start the 
work that needs to be done. We know there are still 1.3 million fewer 
construction workers today than in 2006, when the recession started. 
According to the Associated General Contractors, 24 States and the 
District of Columbia lost construction

[[Page 15773]]

jobs between July and August. No wonder people look at Congress and 
they don't think we are doing a good job. We know all this.
  The Senate has passed a good bill, bipartisan. All we are asking is 
what construction industry officials want us to do, and that is to stop 
the uncertainty about future Federal funding levels for highway and 
transit repairs. We know that the bill we passed in the Senate is a 
good bill. It is not as big as a lot of us wanted, and it is not as 
small as other people wanted. We found a sweet spot.
  I am going to conclude by saying this. The reports I have heard 
indicate that the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee may 
well take action at the end of this month. That is so late. Let's go 
back to the 22 days chart. We are 22 days away from a transportation 
shutdown. They are going to mark up on the very day that we lose the 
authorization to spend funds.
  We know the writing is on the wall. They are going to send us some 
short-term legislation. I want to say I am not going to allow that 
because I will oppose any short-term extension that pulls pieces out of 
our bill and takes the pressure off of passing a bill, such as positive 
train control. We have taken care of positive train control in our 
bill. I am not going to pull it out and put it on a short-term 
extension--no. They will get nothing.
  They have to do their job. That is why they are here. We know we can 
do it. We proved it over here. We have really serious problems over 
here, but we did it. We did it. When you have 65 votes for something 
over here and you pull equally from both parties, you have a good 
product. We have serious issues, and they have to be addressed. We are 
not going to pull out special favorite pieces out of the highway bill 
and stick it on a short-term extension or have some stand-alone bill 
that solves positive train control or any other of the special issues 
that we have addressed in the bill. Everyone knows we have to act.
  I know my friend is waiting patiently to make a few remarks. I simply 
want to conclude with this. We passed a good bill--over $55 billion for 
6 years. There are two new programs, including a formula freight 
program that provides funds for all States to improve goods movement. 
We have included the McCaskill-Schumer rental cars bill so rental cars 
will be safe. We have the first-ever commuter rail fund for positive 
train control.
  These are some of the good things we have done. Let's not throw it 
all away and get it all glommed up into the other problems we are 
facing, which are the date on the debt ceiling and the December 11 date 
on funding the budget. We don't have to do it. This is a special fund. 
It is the highway trust fund. It should not get enmeshed in the end-of-
budget-year issues. We should take that crisis off the plate. We did it 
in the Senate. They should do it in the House. That is our message 
today to the House: Please, Republicans, Democrats, liberals, 
conservatives, moderates, everyone in between, come together for the 
good of this country and pass a highway bill. Let's get to conference. 
Let's get the best bill we can get and be done with it and, at least 
then, send a signal to the people of this country that we are doing our 
job.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I rise to discuss the legislation before 
this body, the National Defense Authorization Act. Before doing so, I 
want to take a minute and address the DRIVE Act. I strongly support the 
DRIVE Act. It is very important that we have a 6-year highway bill for 
our country and that we get it in place. It was passed in a bipartisan 
basis. I think there are many provisions in it that will be very 
helpful, not only to our country but to each and every one of our 
States. We have worked on that legislation; we have passed it through 
regular order. It is vitally important.
  When I go home and talk to my constituents in North Dakota, as I know 
is the case for all Members of this body, they express how important it 
is that we get not only a highway bill passed but a 6-year highway 
bill, a long-term highway bill passed so that these multiyear projects 
can go forward. We do need to get that done and get it done now so that 
we don't have an interruption in the Federal highway program.
  To my esteemed colleague, I want to express my support as well for 
this important legislation. I appreciate both the work of the chairman 
of the Environment and Public Works Committee and of the ranking 
member--my colleague who is the ranking member on EPW. This is 
important legislation. We need to continue to work in a bipartisan way 
in both Houses--the Senate and House--and get this legislation done.
  Mrs. BOXER. Would the Senator yield so I could thank him for a 
minute?
  Mr. HOEVEN. I will.
  Mrs. BOXER. Through the Chair, I want to thank the Senator so much 
because he was one of those people who really helped us. In addition, 
every member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, on both 
sides of the aisle, was terrific on this. In addition to the chairman, 
Senator Inhofe, I also want to single out Senator Durbin and Senator 
McConnell, because they stepped up from both sides of the leadership 
when it really looked as if it would never happen. We proved that we 
could do it. I am so grateful to my friend for showing his support 
because we have so many contentious issues. This is not one of them. I 
want to thank him very much for his comments.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, again, I thank the Senator from 
California. This is important bipartisan legislation, and we need to 
continue to work to get it done.
  I rise today to discuss the NDAA--the National Defense Authorization 
Act. It is likewise incredibly important legislation, in this case for 
our military--for our military and for the defense of this great 
Nation. I want to begin by commending the members of the Armed Services 
Committee, and especially Chairman McCain, but all of them for their 
diligence. That means Members of both the Senate and the House, working 
together in conference committee after both Houses passed this 
legislation, passed the legislation through regular order. I emphasize 
that because it is so important that we follow regular order in this 
body and in the House, where we bring forward the legislation from the 
committees, bring it to the floor, have the debate, have the 
opportunity to offer amendments, debate those amendments, vote on those 
amendments, and then vote on the legislation. Let these bodies work 
their will. Send the legislation to the President. He makes his 
decision and we move forward.
  I emphasize this right at the outset because it is so important that 
we work in this way through regular order so that we get to the 
important work of this country. I use this legislation as a great 
example--the National Defense Authorization Act, the defense of our 
Nation. We are moving forward because we are following regular order. 
We are working in the way I just described in both the Senate and the 
House, and that is what we need to do.
  It is hard to overstate the importance of this legislation for our 
men and women in uniform and for the security of our Nation. I am 
pleased that we are now debating this conference agreement, and I look 
forward to moving to final passage. In just a few hours, at 2 p.m. 
eastern time today, we will be voting on final passage on this 
legislation.
  There are several features of this bill that I want to highlight, and 
I am going to talk about a few of them. There are many important 
provisions, but I do want to highlight some of them here over the next 
few minutes. The first is in the area of personnel and benefits, taking 
care of those who put on the uniform--men and women who wear the 
uniform and put it all on the line for us and for our country.
  This bill represents a continuing commitment to the well-being of our 
service men and women. It makes significant improvements to the 
benefits

[[Page 15774]]

we offer to those who serve, particularly, by allowing military 
participation in the Thrift Savings Plan, as recommended by the 
Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission.
  We recognize that we need to reward those who stay in the military 
for 20 years with a strong retirement package. We also recognize 
through this legislation that those who serve less than 20 years 
deserve something in retirement as well. The Thrift Savings Plan 
provides a great mechanism to do that. I am very glad that we are able 
to include that in this legislation.
  Let me touch for a minute on international security assistance. We 
face an incredible array of threats to our security and to the security 
of our allies. Those threats require immediate and careful attention, 
and this legislation points us in that direction and provides important 
tools. Because of the serious concerns many of us have about the 
efforts to fight ISIL, the National Defense Authorization Act increases 
congressional oversight of the effort to support the fight against ISIL 
in Syria.
  We should not wait to pass this legislation. There is too much at 
stake in critical regions of the world, and we need to move forward. We 
should pass this legislation immediately, and the President should sign 
it right away so that our military has all of the authorities it needs 
to address threats such as ISIL as soon as possible.
  I will talk for a minute about some of the critical defense programs. 
Of course the military needs the best tools available in order to meet 
the security threats of today and tomorrow.
  The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 provides 
authorization for a number of key weapon systems, including the Air 
Force's new long-range strike bomber and the aerial refueling tanker 
programs, missile defense, and a wide range of other procurement 
priorities. Delaying these programs now will harm our national security 
in the future, so it is important to keep them on track by passing this 
legislation and getting it signed into law.
  I am also very pleased that the fiscal year 2016 legislation provides 
full authority for the Air Force's nuclear forces, including the B-52 
bomber and the Minuteman III ICBM as well as the Global Hawk unmanned 
aircraft. Our Global Hawks provide incredible intelligence, 
surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities. In North Dakota, we are 
proud to host the capabilities that make such vital contributions to 
the defense of our Nation--two of the legs of the nuclear triad--the 
intercontinental ballistic missiles and the B-52 bombers, as well as 
the unmanned Global Hawk.
  I also want to say another word about remotely piloted aircraft, 
RPAs. The Air Force has been squeezed by the demand for the 
capabilities we have in the Predator and the Reaper, and it has been 
difficult to meet those demands and still have the capacity to train 
new pilots for these RPAs, remotely piloted aircraft.
  I wish to commend the members of the conference committee for a very 
strong section in this legislation that requires the Air Force to 
consider all of its options to train additional RPA pilots. I have been 
advocating using the private sector to increase our capability to train 
those pilots. That is a step that can be done in the short term without 
drawing down our ability to support commanders in theater.
  Right now the commanders in theater want those remotely piloted 
aircraft for the mission. That is a very high operations tempo. That 
doesn't leave pilots available here at home to train new pilots to fly 
these aircraft. That is why a private sector solution can be so helpful 
to our Air Force, and that is the language I worked so hard to include 
in this legislation.
  I also have language in the report that goes along with the fiscal 
year 2016 Defense appropriations bill. The companion bill to the 
authorization bill is the appropriations bill. I included language in 
the appropriations bill that instructs the Air Force to look at private 
sector-led training. My hope is that between that language and what we 
are passing in this authorization bill, the Air Force will find a way 
to leverage the private sector to enhance what the Air Force can do 
with its RPA fleet, meaning a higher ops tempo, and at the same time 
train new pilots and bring them into the system to fly unmanned 
aircraft.
  Finally, I will highlight a couple of items that are important to 
North Dakota specifically. One is an amendment I offered during floor 
consideration of the NDAA in the Senate. This language directs the Air 
Force to determine the feasibility of partnering the Air National Guard 
with the Active-Duty Air Force to operate and maintain the Global Hawk. 
Similar to what it does in support of the Predator and Reaper missions, 
I believe the Air National Guard can provide a valuable contribution to 
the Global Hawk missions. I am very grateful that the conferees 
retained this amendment in the bill, and I hope that it will prove to 
be valuable not only in North Dakota but will set an example that can 
be followed with other aircraft and the Air National Guard units in 
other States across the country.
  I also wish to thank the conferees for including a $7.3 million 
authorization to construct a new Intelligence Targeting Facility at 
Hector Field in Fargo. Our Air National Guard is taking on an exciting 
new targeting mission and this much needed facility will give them the 
space required and the capability--the facilities and resources 
necessary--to do that job right. They are already doing an outstanding 
job, but they need this secure facility as part of this highly 
specialized and highly important mission.
  I worked on this project through the military construction 
appropriations subcommittee, and I look forward to completing the 
authorizing and appropriating legislation so we can get construction 
started on this new facility in Fargo.
  The bottom line is that this legislation includes many provisions 
that are important for our men and women in uniform, that are critical 
to our national security, and that are vital to each of our States. The 
bill is well crafted, and it has received bipartisan support. It is 
absolutely necessary that we move forward and pass it and that it 
becomes law, so I will touch on that aspect of the legislation for just 
a minute as well.
  The President has indicated that he intends to veto this legislation. 
So he intends to veto legislation that is passing through this body 
with very strong bipartisan support. The irony is that he is vetoing 
this legislation because we included additional funding in the 
legislation for our military that is incredibly important and is very 
much needed. But he is saying, nope, that is not what he wants done and 
has indicated that he will veto the legislation.
  It is very important today that we have strong bipartisan support to 
send a clear message that if this legislation is vetoed, this body and 
the House will override that veto. We have to stand strong on a 
bipartisan basis. We have to make sure that we get this legislation 
passed, not just for our men and women in uniform but for the good and 
for the security of our country.
  This is vitally important legislation. This is about making sure that 
we join together in a bipartisan way and get it done for our men and 
women in uniform, and then there is still more to do.
  This is the authorizing legislation. Then we have to pass the 
appropriating bill that goes with this legislation so that we fund the 
authorizations provided in this legislation, and not until all three 
things are done have we stepped up and got the job done for our 
military. We need to pass this authorization. We need to make sure that 
we override any veto--should the President decide to veto this very 
important legislation--and then we need to stand strong, come together, 
and make sure we do not have a filibuster of the companion bill, the 
Defense appropriations bill, which goes with this authorization. Then, 
and only then, will we have the job done that we need to do for our men 
and women in uniform. That is the task before us, and that is what we 
need to get done. We need to keep our eye on that ball very clearly, 
and we need to make sure the American people

[[Page 15775]]

understand that we have to pass this legislation, override any veto, 
and then pass the companion Defense appropriations bill. Only then have 
we got the job done for our men and women in uniform who put it all on 
the line for us.
  With that, I yield the floor.


                              Section 1045

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I want to thank Chairman McCain and 
Ranking Member Reed for their efforts to include an anti-torture 
provision in the conference report on the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, H.R. 1735. As a coauthor of 
this provision--Section 1045 of the conference report--I am pleased 
that there will now be clear limits on interrogation techniques so that 
the United States can never again conduct coercive and abusive 
interrogations or indefinite secret detentions.
  Section 1045 applies the restrictions on interrogations in the Army 
Field Manual under current law to the entire U.S. Government. The 
provision therefore extends to the whole of government what Congress 
did in 2005, by a vote of 90-9, with the Detainee Treatment Act, which 
banned the Department of Defense from using techniques not authorized 
by the Army Field Manual. The Detainee Treatment Act also banned across 
the government the use of cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment or 
punishment.
  Section 1045 also requires prompt access by the International 
Committee of the Red Cross to any detainee held by the U.S. Government.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with 
the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator McCain, to 
provide clear legislative history as the coauthors of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would like to start by asking the distinguished 
Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, a question concerning this anti-
torture provision, Section 1045.
  Some have raised the concerns about the exemption in this provision 
for Federal law enforcement agencies. The concern is that this new 
provision might supersede other laws, rules, and guidance that apply to 
Federal law enforcement agencies. The language in the Senate-passed 
bill made clear that Federal law enforcement agencies could use 
interrogation techniques outside of the Army Field Manual if those 
techniques are authorized, noncoercive, and ``designed to elicit 
voluntary statements and do not involve the use of force, threats, or 
promises.''
  Does the absence of this language in the conference report somehow 
open the door to the use of coercive interrogation techniques by those 
agencies? Is that the intent of the law enforcement exception in 
Section 1045?
  Mr. McCAIN. No. I assure the Senator from California that this is not 
the case and that I would not have agreed to any such provision if it 
were. The conferees decided that the requirement that all U.S. 
interrogations be conducted in accordance with the Army Field Manual on 
interrogations should not apply to Federal law enforcement officials 
for two simple, straightforward reasons.
  First, Federal law enforcement agencies already have an extensive and 
well-established set of rules and procedures concerning interrogations 
because law enforcement interrogations are by definition conducted to 
produce statements that are voluntary and admissible in court. Those 
rules and procedures strictly prohibit the use of coercive techniques.
  Second, the U.S. Army Field Manual was not written with law 
enforcement circumstances in mind, and it is unnecessary to ask law 
enforcement agencies to use or adapt the Army Field Manual when they 
already have their own rules and procedures for noncoercive 
interrogations.
  Since at least 2004, it has been the policy of the FBI that ``no 
attempt be made to obtain a statement by force, threats, or promises,'' 
according to the Legal Handbook for FBI Special Agents, as publicly 
recounted by the FBI general counsel in July 24, 2004, congressional 
testimony. This and other such rules and applicable restrictions are 
unaffected by this provision.
  In short, we did not ``open the door'' to coercive techniques by law 
enforcement in any way. We left the existing law enforcement rules 
under current law and Executive order in place. Indeed, as the joint 
explanatory statement of managers in this conference report states: 
``The conferees recognize that law enforcement personnel may continue 
to use authorized non-coercive techniques of interrogation, and that 
Army Field Manual 2-22.3 is designed to reflect best practices for 
interrogation to elicit reliable statements.''
  Also, it should go without saying that the exemption for ``Federal 
law enforcement entities'' does not apply to the Central Intelligence 
Agency, Department of Defense, and the like, but rather includes 
entities like the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of 
Homeland Security, as specified.
  It is false to suggest that the conferees in any way agreed to allow 
the use of coercive interrogations by law enforcement agencies. We have 
banned coercive interrogations because they are a stain on our national 
character, ineffective, and counterproductive to our foreign policy 
goals.
  I did not work for more than a decade to preclude coercive 
interrogations only to agree to permit them so long as they are carried 
out by a different set of agencies. I did not, and this provision does 
no such thing. The rules and strictures on coercive interrogations by 
Federal law enforcement agencies are completely unaffected by this 
provision. I say that as the coauthor of the Senate amendment and as 
the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who negotiated the 
agreement on the final language.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I want to thank Chairman McCain for explaining the 
legislative intent of the provision and for making clear that this 
legislation does not allow the use of coercive interrogations by 
Federal law enforcement agencies.
  I would also like to ask the Senator for his view on one additional 
change made to the anti-torture provision in the conference process. 
The Senate bill required the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with 
other specified officials, to review the Army Field Manual for update 
and revision. The Senate bill required this to be completed within a 
year from the date of enactment and once every 3 years thereafter. The 
conference report changes the timeline for that review, so that it 
occurs not sooner than 3 years from the date of enactment, and then 
every 3 years thereafter. Can the chairman of the committee clarify the 
reasoning behind that change?
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator for the question. There was a concern 
among the conferees that the Senate provision would not allow adequate 
time for the mandatory review, especially given the broadening of the 
application of the Army Field Manual to the rest of government. In 
light of this change, and the importance of the review, the conferees 
decided that 3 years was a more appropriate timeline.
  I would also like to clarify one point, as there has been some 
confusion. It has been pointed out that the conference report requires 
the mandatory review of the Army Field Manual to be completed ``not 
sooner than'' 3 years from the date of enactment. This should not be 
read as allowing the review to be done far in excess of 3 years or 
potentially not at all. This language appears under the heading 
``Requirement to Update,'' and it is the conferees' view that this 
review must be completed on or shortly after 3 years from the date of 
enactment.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Again, I thank the chairman and congratulate him for 
his very important legislative achievement.
  Madam President, I want to thank Chairman McCain and Ranking Member 
Reed for their efforts to include an anti-torture provision in the 
conference report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2016, H.R. 1735.
  Section 1045 of the conference report establishes clear limits on 
interrogation techniques so that the United

[[Page 15776]]

States can never again conduct coercive and abusive interrogations or 
indefinite secret detentions.
  Section 1045 applies the restrictions on interrogations in the Army 
Field Manual under current law to the entire U.S. Government. The 
provision therefore extends what Congress did in 2005, by a vote of 90-
9, with the Detainee Treatment Act, which banned the Department of 
Defense from using techniques not authorized by the Army Field Manual, 
and also banned across the government the use of cruel, inhumane, and 
degrading treatment or punishment.
  Section 1045 also requires prompt access by the International 
Committee of the Red Cross to any detainee held by the U.S. Government.
  Both of these provisions are consistent with U.S. policy for the past 
several years, but Section 1045 will now codify these requirements into 
law.
  President Obama banned the use of coercive and abusive interrogation 
techniques by Executive order in his first few days in office, on 
January 22, 2009.
  That Executive order, No. 13491, formally prohibits--as a matter of 
policy--the use of interrogation techniques not specifically authorized 
by Army Field Manual 2-22.3 on human intelligence collector operations. 
Section 1045 places that restriction into law, which is long overdue.
  What this means is that a future President can't simply rewrite the 
policy--these limitations are now a matter of law and can't be undone 
without a future act of Congress.
  Section 1045(a)(2) states that an individual in custody or otherwise 
detained ``shall not be subjected to any interrogation technique or 
approach, or any treatment related to interrogation, that is not 
authorized by and listed in the Army Field Manual.''
  Section 1045(a)(2)(B)(i) makes clear that the ban on interrogation 
techniques not authorized by the Army Field Manual applies to all 
individuals ``in the custody or under the effective control of an 
officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government,'' 
whether during or outside an armed conflict.
  This is a very important change. Unlike the Executive order, which 
only applies to armed conflict, we are saying with this law that 
coercive interrogations will never again be used, period.
  Section 1045(b) codifies a separate section of President Obama's 
January 2009 Executive order, requiring access by the International 
Committee of the Red Cross to all U.S. detainees in U.S. Government 
custody--which has been historically granted by the United States and 
other law-abiding nations and is needed to fulfill our obligations 
under international law, such as in the Geneva Conventions.
  I know my colleagues are well aware of the executive summary of the 
study released by the Intelligence Committee in December 2014 on the 
deeply flawed detention and interrogation program carried out by the 
CIA beginning in 2002.
  During my floor speech on the study in December 2014, I described how 
the interrogations of CIA detainees from 2002 onward were absolutely 
brutal and ineffective.
  In August of 2014, President Obama said what many of us have known 
for years: that the CIA's now-defunct interrogation program amounted to 
torture.
  CIA Director John Brennan has clearly stated he agrees with the ban 
on interrogation techniques that are not in the Army Field Manual. 
Director Brennan wrote the following to the Intelligence Committee in 
2013 about the President's 2009 Executive Order:
  ``I want to reaffirm what I said during my confirmation hearing: I 
agree with the President's decision, and, while I am the Director of 
the CIA, this program will not under any circumstances be reinitiated. 
I personally remain firm in my belief that enhanced interrogation 
techniques are not an appropriate method to obtain intelligence and 
that their use impairs our ability to continue to play a leadership 
role in the world.''
  More recently, in a September 11, 2015, letter to me, Director 
Brennan wrote that ``CIA strictly adheres to Executive Order 13491, 3 
C.F.R. 199 (2009), and fully supports efforts to codify key provisions 
of the executive order in the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 
2016.''
  As a result of the anti-torture statute (18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340A) and 
passage of the Detainee Treatment Act in 2005, current law already bans 
torture, as well as cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or 
punishment.
  However, the provision in this bill is still necessary because the 
CIA was able to employ brutal interrogation techniques based on deeply 
flawed legal theories that those techniques did not constitute 
``torture'' or ``cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment.''
  Opinions written by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal 
Counsel, OLC, which could not withstand scrutiny and have since been 
withdrawn, managed to twist legal reasoning beyond all recognition and 
find that waterboarding, sleep deprivation up to 180 hours at a time, 
stress positions, slamming a detainee into a wall, and other similar 
techniques were not torture.
  OLC reached these erroneous legal judgments by ignoring the inherent 
brutality of the CIA's so-called enhanced interrogation techniques. 
While ignoring that fact, OLC claimed CIA's techniques were a necessity 
to keep Americans safe and OLC mistakenly found the CIA program was 
managed and implemented with great care, which it was not.
  This stood in stark contrast to the clear language of the anti-
torture statute in the U.S. Code, and the Convention against Torture, 
which the U.S. Senate ratified in 1994.
  That convention, clearly and absolutely, bans torture. It says: ``No 
exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a 
threat of war, internal political instability or any other public 
emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.''
  And yet so-called enhanced interrogation techniques--not allowed by 
the Army Field Manual, were approved, used, and abused by the Bush 
administration.
  Section 1045 will serve as an additional bulwark to prevent similar 
techniques from ever be used again by imposing--on all of the U.S. 
Government--the same restrictions that apply to the U.S. military today 
under the Detainee Treatment Act.
  In order to make sure that the legislative history is clear, I'd like 
to describe the minor changes that were made to the language of this 
anti-torture provision during the conference.
  As described in the joint explanatory statement of the committee of 
the conference, the following two minor changes were made to the 
amendment.
  First, regarding the applicability of this new provision to law 
enforcement interrogations, Section 1045 makes clear that the new 
limitations ``shall not apply to officers, employees, or agents of the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security, 
or other Federal law enforcement entities.''
  The version that passed the Senate and this final version both have 
an exemption for law enforcement because law enforcement agencies do 
not use the Army Field Manual and are already required to use 
noncoercive interrogation methods in which officers question suspects 
in order to elicit voluntary statements.
  This exemption is consistent with and reinforces the relevant 
requirements of Executive Order 13491 on ``Ensuring Lawful 
Interrogations,'' which allows law enforcement agents to use only 
``authorized, non-coercive techniques of interrogation that are 
designed to elicit voluntary statements and do not involve the use of 
force, threats, or promises.''
  For example, since at least 2004, it has been the policy of the FBI 
that ``no attempt be made to obtain a statement by force, threats, or 
promises,'' according to the Legal Handbook for FBI Special Agents 
which was publicly recounted by the FBI general counsel in July 24, 
2004, congressional testimony.
  As the conferees to the defense bill wrote in their joint explanatory 
statement: ``The conferees recognize that

[[Page 15777]]

law enforcement personnel may continue to use authorized non-coercive 
techniques of interrogation.'' The absence of this language in the 
final bill text should not be interpreted as any authorization for law 
enforcement to use any coercive interrogation techniques.
  The second minor change to the anti-torture amendment that was made 
in the conference committee is that the timing for the completion of 
the required update to the Army Field Manual--after the specified 
``thorough review''--was changed from ``[n]ot later than one year'' to 
``[n]ot sooner than three years'' in subsection (a)(6)(A) of Section 
1045.
  This change does not alter the importance of the required review, the 
imperative that it be initiated in the immediate future, and that it be 
completed in 3 years' time.
  The language of the provision is clear: the conferees wanted the 
Secretary of Defense to be thorough and gave him 3 years to complete 
the review. But the amendment says that he ``shall complete'' a 
thorough review after 3 years, not that he ``shall initiate'' a 
thorough review after 3 years.
  It is also important to point out that, regardless of the timing of 
this statutorily required review, this administration or the subsequent 
administration may at any time revise portions or the entirety of the 
Army Field Manual.
  As Section 1045(a)(6)(A) states, revising the Army Field Manual is 
not optional; it is a ``requirement to update.'' Moreover, the 
provision makes clear that this requirement must be undertaken every 3 
years. Therefore, it would be inconsistent with the title, structure, 
and purpose of this subsection to suggest that the initial review 
following enactment can be postponed indefinitely.
  Also, as the amendment notes, revisions to the Army Field Manual may 
be necessary to ensure that it complies with the legal obligations of 
the United States, a requirement that the executive branch is obligated 
to adhere to at all times.
  In addition, no matter when the updates to the Army Field Manual are 
made, the manual ``is designed to reflect best practices for 
interrogation to elicit reliable statements,'' as the conferees also 
wrote their joint explanatory statement. America's best and most 
experienced interrogators have consistently and emphatically stated 
that best practices for eliciting reliable, actionable intelligence 
solely involve noncoercive techniques that elicit voluntary statements.
  Let me now turn briefly to part (b) of Section 1045, which codifies 
part of President Obama's Executive order of January 2009 requiring 
access by the International Committee of the Red Cross, ICRC, to all 
U.S. detainees in U.S. Government custody.
  This requirement--which is based on our obligations under 
international law--has had bipartisan support in previous Congresses.
  As we know from our own history and from the experiences of detainees 
around the world, closing the door to the ICRC opens the door to 
torture and other forms of mistreatment. Providing ICRC access is also 
necessary for our moral standing and critical to our efforts to defend 
human rights abroad.
  Finally, our troops depend on the promise of ICRC access should they 
be taken prisoner. Now is the time to ensure that we live up to the 
values--in practice and in law--that we expect will be accorded to our 
own members of the military.
  I have been opposed to coercive interrogations and the use of so-
called enhanced interrogation techniques since I first learned of their 
use at Abu Ghraib and by the CIA. This bill, at long last, puts the end 
to them. I am very proud to have been part of the process to author and 
support this provision and very much thank the bill managers for their 
insistence that it remain in the final legislation.
  Whatever one may think about the CIA's former detention and 
interrogation program, we should all agree that there can be no turning 
back to the era of torture. Coercive interrogation techniques do not 
work, they corrode our moral standing, and ultimately, they undermine 
counterterrorism policies they are intended to support.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                            YouTube Kids App

  Mr. NELSON. Madam President, a few weeks ago I brought to the 
attention of the Senate the continuing new challenges that we have with 
the Internet and the fact that so much material is available to all of 
us, including our youngest citizens, indeed, our toddlers.
  The question is: What is appropriate content for our toddlers? Google 
has put up a YouTube application for kids. They call it YouTube Kids. I 
have some pictures here that show some of the content on that 
application. First of all, I think this picture is self-explanatory. It 
says: How to open a beer with another beer. Mind you, this is a YouTube 
Kids application. Toddlers can access this information. It says: How to 
open a beer, and it goes through the sequence. This is another fairly 
graphic picture of how to open a beer with a beer.
  Is that appropriate for young children? It is readily available and 
promoted by Google. I doubt that we would conclude that it is. Here is 
another one.
  This one has wine-tasting tips. What is tannin in wine? Identifying 
acidity in wine.
  Here is the cutest baby song in the world, ``Everybody Dance Now.'' 
That doesn't look too bad. Here is Alvin and the Chipmunks. This has 
nursery rhymes for babies, but when you play it, there are some unusual 
words in there, and so forth and so on. You get the picture. This is 
for children. This is for little ones.
  Now here is a picture that shows how to make sulfuric acid two ways. 
Is that appropriate for toddlers?
  I have another example. This shows how to make toxic chlorine gas. Is 
that appropriate for young children? I don't think so.
  I wrote to Google, and fortunately Google responded. I wish to share 
with the Senate what I believe are steps in the right direction, but 
not enough. For example, I asked: What policies and procedures govern 
the inclusion of the videos on this app?
  The answer in the Google letter is that Google uses algorithms that 
govern the automated system. Parents can notify Google of problem 
videos. Google will be informing parents on how to change its settings 
to allow parents to be more restrictive with the range of videos their 
kids can access.
  Well, why should parents have to intercede when their algorithms--if 
you type in a search for beer--come up with what I showed you? It shows 
us how to open a beer with another beer. That seems contrary to common 
sense.
  Then we ask: What factors determine whether content is suitable for 
children?
  Google's answer is: An automated system and parental complaints.
  I ask in my letter: For what age range must content be suitable?
  Google did not answer that question.
  I additionally ask: What steps, such as filtering, does Google take 
to ensure unsuitable content does not appear in search results on 
YouTube Kids? Do these steps apply to new content uploaded to YouTube 
Kids?
  Google's answer was: Google uses algorithms in the automated system. 
Google will soon be informing parents on how to change settings and 
restrict the range of videos. That is the same answer that applied to a 
previous question.
  So I ask: How long after content is flagged does Google assess its 
suitability?
  The answer is quite unclear. The statement in this letter was: Google 
personnel quickly manually review any videos that are flagged.
  So I additionally ask: How does Google remove content that is deemed 
unsuitable for YouTube Kids and ensure that it continues to be 
inaccessible to YouTube Kids?
  The answer from the letter is: The video is manually removed by 
Google employees. That is the automatic way of what is deemed 
unsuitable to ensure that it continues to be inaccessible.
  So I ask: What policies and procedures govern how Google determines

[[Page 15778]]

the suitability of advertisements and whether they can appear on this 
app?
  The answer is: Advertising must abide by three core principles which 
include that ads maintain an appropriate viewing environment, that they 
not be based on data tracking, and that they are formatted to enable 
exclusive YouTube Kids control.
  That is nice. How do we get those beer advertisements off of there?
  Then I ask: What policies and procedures does Google use, if any, to 
distinguish advertisements and paid content from unpaid content on 
YouTube Kids?
  The answer is: Paid advertisements are clearly labeled.
  We have constantly had this tension with any publication as to what 
is appropriate content. The movie industry years ago went through this 
with the rating system. But now we are in the age of the Internet and, 
as such, it is ubiquitous and it is available to very small children 
who want to know how to use a device that they see everybody else 
using. On an application that is specifically designed for children, if 
we allow this kind of stuff to go on, then where are our commonsense 
values? We don't want to be teaching a toddler about beer and wine and 
about how to open a beer bottle with your teeth, and we certainly don't 
want to be throwing out pictures such as these for toddlers to see. 
Maybe there is a time and place for that under parental discretion and 
guidance--but not available on an app for children.
  I want to thank Google publicly for making a first step, but it is 
only that. It is a first step. Since this is an app by Google for small 
children, Google has a responsibility. If there is a privilege of doing 
an app like this, then there must be accountability, and Google has to 
accept that responsibility to be accountable.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PERDUE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PERDUE. Madam President, I rise today to speak in favor of the 
National Defense Authorization Act. I strongly urge my colleagues in 
this body to vote for the NDAA and send it to the President's desk for 
signature. Let's move to fund our military.
  The threats to our Nation have never been greater or more complex in 
my entire life. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 
I am given daily briefs of what I believe is an emerging global 
security crisis.
  This administration just completed a nuclear deal with Iran that 
stokes the fears of our friends and allies in the region and releases 
tens of billions of dollars in sanctions relief to a regime that is the 
world's worst state sponsor of terrorism. We have had to bolster our 
support to allies in the region in an attempt to mitigate the impact of 
further Iranian spending to support Assad in Syria, the Houthi rebels 
in Yemen, Hezbollah, Hamas, and terrorism worldwide. We have seen the 
astonishing rise of ISIS as they have taken advantage of the power 
vacuum we left behind by prematurely withdrawing our troops from Iraq. 
I would hate to see history repeat itself in Afghanistan, which is 
actually being discussed as we speak today.
  Meanwhile, traditional rivals are aggressively posturing on two other 
fronts. China is antagonizing our allies in the Pacific Rim, and Russia 
is testing the resolve of our NATO alliance, blatantly grabbing 
sovereign territory in Ukraine, Crimea, and injecting troops and war 
materiel into Syria.
  At the same time we see an increase in symmetric and asymmetric 
threats, we are headed in a direction where we are about to have the 
smallest Army since World War II, the smallest Navy since World War I, 
and the smallest Air Force ever.
  Meanwhile, the Chinese alone are rapidly expanding their investment 
in their military and their forces in the Asian Pacific region and are 
set to double their defense budget by 2020. As a matter of fact, I was 
recently briefed at U.S. Pacific Command headquarters on the 
developments of U.S. forces in the Asia-Pacific in comparison directly 
to those of China. This is very alarming. In 1999, the U.S. military 
had a dominant and protective position in the Asia-Pacific and was 
totally capable of protecting our interests in the region. Today, 
however, China has reached military parity in the region. What is 
really troubling are the projections for 2020, however, in which 
China's relative combat power and presence in the region will be 
significantly more dominant than that of the United States.
  That is why we need to ensure that we continue funding our military 
at the appropriate level. We need to ensure that our brave service men 
and women have the tools, training, and technology they need to meet 
the current threats we face on a daily basis but also to tackle what is 
coming in the future.
  This year's NDAA reinforces the mission against ISIS and Operation 
Inherent Resolve. It provides assistance and sustainment to the 
military and national security forces of Ukraine, including the 
authority for lethal aid to Ukraine for defensive purposes. This NDAA 
fills critical gaps in readiness, ensuring that our service men and 
women meet their training requirements and have mission-capable 
equipment.
  The convergence of our fiscal debt crisis and our global security 
crisis is indeed a sobering reality, and they must be resolved 
simultaneously. In order to have a strong foreign policy, we have to 
have a strong military, and to have a strong military, we have to have 
a strong economy. We have to solve our debt crisis at the same time 
that we continue to dominate militarily.
  As former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mullen once said, 
``The most significant threat to our national security is our [Federal] 
debt.'' That fact still rings true today.
  Having recently visited our troops and military leaders in the Middle 
East and the Asia-Pacific regions, I can tell you that the very best of 
America is in uniform around the world in our military, putting their 
lives in jeopardy every day to protect our freedom here at home. Our 
military is made up of some of the finest, smartest, and bravest people 
I have ever met. They are true American heroes committed to defending 
our freedom. They deserve our unwavering support.
  One of the 6 reasons--only 6 reasons--why 13 Colonies came together 
in the beginning of our country to form this Nation, as enshrined in 
our Constitution, was to provide for the common defense. As George 
Washington said, ``To be prepared for war is one of the most effective 
means of preserving peace.'' Indeed, as we have learned over and over, 
maintaining a strong national defense can actually deter aggression. We 
absolutely must maintain a military force so strong that no enemy in 
its right mind would challenge us and those who dare have no hope in 
defeating us.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the time until 1:30 p.m. will be controlled 
by the Democratic manager or his designee and the time from 1:30 p.m. 
until 2 p.m. will be controlled by the chairman of the Committee on 
Armed Services or his designee.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise once again to speak about the 
fiscal year's national defense authorization conference report. 
Yesterday I spoke at length about the OCO funding issue, and that, to 
me, is the most critical issue in the bill and one that has caused me 
to reluctantly not support the conference report. But this time I will 
discuss the conference report in its entirety.
  Again, I would like to thank Chairman McCain, Chairman Thornberry,

[[Page 15779]]

and Ranking Member Smith for a very thoughtful and cooperative process 
which allowed us to reach agreement on some very difficult issues. I 
also thank in particular the staff of the House and Senate Armed 
Services Committees, who worked tirelessly over several months to 
resolve differences on over 800 different provisions.
  As I stated yesterday, in many respects this is a good conference 
report which supports our men and women in uniform and establishes many 
much needed reforms and, with the exception of the OCO position, would 
be something that would have widespread support.
  There are many provisions in the bill that are commendable. This 
conference report authorizes a 1.3-percent pay raise for servicemembers 
and reauthorizes a number of expiring bonuses and special pay 
authorities to encourage enlistment, reenlistment, and continued 
service by Active-Duty and Reserve component military personnel.
  Significantly, it includes much needed reform of the military 
retirement system and brings the military retirement system into the 
21st century for a new generation of recruits.
  It also deals with the need to begin to bring into better control 
personnel costs at the Department of Defense because, as we all 
recognize, there is a huge trendline of personnel costs that would 
outstrip at some point the training and equipment that are necessary to 
the vitality and agility of the force.
  One example is the pilot program to test approaches to the commissary 
and exchange system to see if there are ways in which that can be 
handled more efficiently without preventing military personnel from 
enjoying that benefit they have earned.
  The report also includes a commitment to seriously consider reforms 
to military health care in the coming year. All told, these personnel 
authorities and reforms will serve tomorrow's servicemembers and their 
families, and they will save the Department of Defense annually in its 
discretionary budget, allowing that funding to be reapplied to 
readiness and modernization or even to maintaining a larger force.
  The conference report includes roughly 60 provisions on acquisition 
reform. I commend in particular Chairman McCain for his efforts in this 
area. It is a long history and a proud history. He worked with Chairman 
Levin. Previously he has worked with so many others. He has made this a 
personal area of not only concern but of notable action. The provisions 
will help streamline acquisition processes, allow DOD to access 
commercial and small businesses, and improve the acquisition workforce. 
They build on the success of the reforms led by the chairman in the 
Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009.
  The report also includes a number of provisions that will strengthen 
DOD's ability to develop next-generation technologies and weapons 
systems and maintain our technological superiority on the battlefield. 
The report strengthens the DOD laboratories and increases funding for 
university research programs and STEM education. It also contains a 
number of provisions that will make it easier for the Pentagon to work 
with high-tech small businesses, bringing their innovative ideas into 
the defense industrial base.
  With respect to cyber security, this report includes multiple 
provisions, some of which I sponsored and all of which I support. These 
include a requirement for biannual whole-of-nation exercises on 
responding to cyber attacks on critical infrastructure, independent 
assessment of Cyber Command's ability to defend the Nation against 
cyber attack, comprehensive assessments of the cyber vulnerabilities of 
major weapons systems, and the provision of limited acquisition 
authorities to the commander of Cyber Command.
  The conference report also has over $400 million in additional 
readiness funding for the military services--across all branches: 
Active, Guard, and Reserve. It fully authorizes the programs for 
modernizing our nuclear triad of sea, ground, and airborne platforms. 
There are also specific recommendations on many procurement programs 
that will help the Department improve management and cope with 
shortfalls. All of these provisions will ensure that our military 
personnel have the equipment and training they need to succeed in their 
mission.
  For the various overseas challenges facing the United States, and 
they are considerable, this conference report provides key funding and 
authority for two major U.S.-led coalition operations: the mission in 
Afghanistan and the counter-ISIS coalition in Iraq and Syria. It also 
includes additional funding for initiatives to expand the U.S. military 
presence and exercises in Eastern Europe, reassuring allies and 
countering the threat of Russian hybrid warfare tactics, and authorizes 
additional military assistance, including lethal assistance for 
Ukraine. I had the privilege of visiting Ukraine recently and being 
with the paratroopers of the 172nd Airborne Brigade who are training 
Ukrainian forces. They are doing a commendable job and it represents a 
tangible commitment by the United States to support friends across the 
globe.
  The conference report also includes, very notably and very 
importantly, the Senate provisions codifying the current policy that 
interrogations of detainees in the custody of any U.S. Government 
agency or department must comply with the Army Field Manual on 
Interrogation. These provisions, sponsored by Senator McCain, Senator 
Feinstein, and I, will ensure that detainee interrogations are 
conducted using noncoercive techniques that do not involve the threat 
or use of force, consistent with our values as a nation. I know how 
important this was, particularly to Chairman McCain and Senator 
Feinstein. It represents our best values and also from the testimony we 
have heard over many years, the most effective way to obtain 
information in circumstances as we have witnessed in the last few 
years.
  All of these provisions are commendable. They are the result of 
significant effort by Chairman McCain, Chairman Thornberry, Ranking 
Member Smith, and the staff who worked tirelessly. However, there are 
provisions that do in fact cause some concern. Let me first talk about 
the issue of Guantanamo Bay. The report continues the restrictions on 
the President's authorities relating to the Guantanamo detention 
facility.
  In previous Defense authorization bills, we had made progress in 
giving the President greater flexibility in streamlining the process of 
making transfers from Guantanamo to other locations, bringing us closer 
to the goal of closing Guantanamo. The Guantanamo provisions in this 
year's conference report, however, are in a sense a step backward. They 
continue to maintain the prohibitions on the transfer of Guantanamo 
detainees to the United States and on the construction or modification 
of a facility in the United States to hold such detainees.
  This deprives the President of a key tool for fighting terrorism, the 
ability to prosecute Guantanamo detainees in Federal court. To make 
matters more complicated, the conference report proposes additional 
hurdles on the transfer of Guantanamo detainees overseas, requiring the 
Secretary of Defense to complete a checklist of certifications for 
overseas transfers and prohibiting such transfers to certain specified 
countries altogether.
  Further, the conference report does not include a provision from the 
Senate bill that authorized the temporary transfer of Guantanamo 
detainees to the United States for medical reasons in the event of 
life-threatening emergencies. As the Guantanamo detainees get older, 
there is an increasing risk of a detainee suffering serious harm or 
death because the military is legally prohibited from bringing that 
person to the United States to receive necessary medical care.
  Both President Bush and President Obama have called for closing 
Guantanamo Bay. Our military leaders have repeatedly said that 
Guantanamo harms our national security and serves as a propaganda and 
recruiting tool for terrorists. This is an issue we have been wrestling 
with for over a decade, and I regret that we are no closer to resolving 
it with this conference report.

[[Page 15780]]

  This conference report also does not contain many of the cost-saving 
proposals that the Department of Defense requested. For example, the 
retirement of many aging aircraft and ships is prohibited and a BRAC 
round was not ever considered. Without such authorities, we in Congress 
are making it even more difficult for the Department of Defense to 
acquire and maintain the things they need because we are forcing them 
to keep what they consider no longer cost- or mission-effective.
  Finally, as I have said it many times consistently throughout this 
process, the one item that I find is most objectionable, and indeed 
reluctantly forced me to argue against the conference report, is the 
fact that it shifts $38 billion requested by the President in the base 
military budget, in the routine base budget--it shifts it to the 
Overseas Contingency Operations account or OCO.
  Essentially, it skirts the BCA. This transfer from base to OCO raises 
several concerns. First, it violates the consensus that was agreed to 
when we passed the BCA that both defense discretionary spending and 
domestic discretionary spending would be treated equally. Now, we find 
a way to avoid that consensus. In fact, that was one of the premises 
many of us found persuasive enough to support the BCA, but the concerns 
that are raised are many.
  First, adding funds to OCO does not solve--it actually complicates--
the Department of Defense's budgetary problems. Defense budgeting needs 
to be based on our long-term military strategy, which requires DOD to 
focus at least 5 years into the future. A 1-year plus-up to OCO does 
not provide DOD with the certainty and stability it needs when building 
its 5-year budget. This instability undermines the morale of our troops 
and their families who want to know their futures are planned for more 
than 1 year at a time and the confidence of our defense industry 
partners that we rely on to provide the best technology available to 
our troops.
  Second, the transfer does not provide additional funds for many of 
the domestic agencies which are also critical to our national security. 
We cannot defend our homeland without the FBI. In fact, we just heard 
reports today of FBI activities disrupting a potential smuggling of 
nuclear material in Eastern European, headed--the suggestion is--toward 
ISIL or other radical elements. We need the FBI. Yet they remain 
subject to the Budget Control Act.
  We need to fund the Justice Department, other aspects of their 
activities, the TSA, Customs and Border Protection, and the Coast 
Guard. These later agencies are funded through the Department of 
Homeland Security. Without adequate support for the State Department, 
the danger to our troops increases. In addition, failing to provide BCA 
cap relief to non-DOD departments and agencies would also shortchange 
veterans who receive employment services, transition assistance, and 
housing and homeless support.
  Third, moving funding from the base budget to OCO has no impact on 
reducing the deficit. OCO and emergency funding are outside the budget 
caps for a reason; they are for the costs of ongoing military 
operations or to respond to unforeseen events, such as the flooding we 
are witnessing in South Carolina. To transfer funds for known day-to-
day operations into war and emergency funding accounts to skirt the law 
is not fiscally responsible or honest accounting.
  The OCO was designed for the contingencies that were non-routine and 
would not be recurring. In fact, we have seen OCO funds go up 
dramatically as our commitments both in Afghanistan and Iraq went up 
and then go down as you would expect. Suddenly that curve is beginning 
to shift up and go up, not because of the increased number of military 
personnel deployed--in fact, there are fewer military personnel 
deployed in these areas today--but because we have found a way--at 
least we think we have found a way--to move around the BCA for defense 
and defense alone.
  Many have argued: Well, that might be true, but this is not the place 
to talk about this issue. I disagree. This is not a debate about which 
appropriations account we put the money in; it is a fundamental debate 
about how we intend to fund the workings of the government today and in 
the future, all parts of the government, because if we can use this 
technique for defense, it, frankly and honestly, relieves the pressure 
to take the constraints off other agencies. It sets the whole table, if 
you will, for our budget for every Federal agency.
  So this is not a narrow issue of appropriations, whether it is the 
committee on housing and urban development or the committee on interior 
and environment; this is a fundamental issue. The BCA is a statute, not 
an appropriations bill, per se. It came to us as an independent 
statute. We have a responsibility to respond to the challenge it poses 
to the defense budget and to every other budget.
  This is just not a 1-year fix. If this were a bridge that we knew 
would take us from this year to next year, well, we might do these 
things in a different way. Unfortunately I think this conference report 
is going to be replicated in the future, because if we rely on this 
approach this year, there is huge pressure next year to do the same 
thing, unless we can resolve the underlying problems of the Budget 
Control Act.
  I believe it is essential for us to do this for the best interests of 
our country, for the best interests of our military personnel. I don't 
think by standing up and casting a vote in this light we are 
disrespecting or not recognizing the men and women who wear the uniform 
of the United States. In fact, it has not been uncommon over the years 
that because of issues, this bill has been objected to by both sides.
  Indeed, since 2005 my colleagues on the Republican side have cast 
votes against cloture on the NDAA 10 times and successfully blocked 
cloture 4 times over such issues as Senate rules and procedures, the 
repeal of don't ask, don't tell, and in one case gasoline prices. So to 
argue today that the only reason we should vote for this bill is 
because it is procedurally not appropriate to discuss this, well, was 
it procedurally appropriate to use the Defense bill to essentially 
register anguish about gasoline prices?
  This goes to the heart not just of this bill but every bill. 
Therefore, I don't think it is something we have to shy away from. In 
fact, I think we have to take it on. If we cannot fix this Budget 
Control Act straightjacket we are in, it will harm our national 
security. If we don't have the FBI agents out there trying to disrupt 
smuggling of uranium and other fissile materials, that hurts us. It 
hurts our national security. If we don't have the Department of Energy 
laboratories that are capable of doing research, helping us and working 
with foreign governments about detection of radioactive material, that 
hurts our national security. This is about national security, and I 
think we have to consider it in that light.
  So we are here today, and we are dealing with an issue of the 
authorization act in the context of the continuing resolution because 
we have not resolved the Budget Control Act. These are all roads coming 
together: the conference report, the continuing resolution, all of them 
in the context of trying to respond to the Budget Control Act. I think 
we should step up and deal with the Budget Control Act.
  We have had many months to try to find the answer. We haven't. When 
we considered this legislation previously in the Senate, it was summer 
time, and it appeared that there might be a coming together on a 
bipartisan basis and a thoughtful basis, trying to provide the relief 
so we wouldn't have to rely on OCO when the conference report arrived, 
but we are here today and OCO is still staring us right in the face.
  I think we have to ensure that we stand and say that is not the way 
we want to go forward for the defense of our country in the broadest 
context and for the support of our military personnel.
  There is one other issue I do wish to raise, too, because it has been 
brought up; that is, the suggestion that if this bill does not pass 
today, then our military will not receive their pay raises and bonuses. 
The provisions in this bill go into effect January 1, 2016. We still

[[Page 15781]]

have time. I would hope we would use that time not only to make some 
changes--technical here and there--but also to deal with the central 
issue which I hope we all agree is driving everything; that is, fixing 
the Budget Control Act in a way that we can provide across-the-board 
support for our Federal agencies, particularly our national security 
agencies which go beyond simply the Department of Defense.
  I think the time is now. This is a moment to deal with the issue, not 
defer it and hope something happens in the future. We have to resolve 
the Budget Control Act.
  I urge, for that reason as much as anything, that my colleagues would 
vote against this conference report as an important step in the process 
and a necessary step, in my view, in the process of resolving the great 
budget crisis we face in terms of the Budget Control Act.
  In fact, one of my concerns is that if we do in fact pass this 
conference report and it subsequently becomes law or just the simple 
fact that we pass it, it gives some people the excuse of saying: Well, 
we have fixed the only problem that we think is of some significant 
concern, the Department of Defense, so we don't have to do anything 
else.
  Again, we have to fund the FBI, we have to fund Homeland Security, 
and we have to fund a vigorous State Department. All of those agencies, 
if we do nothing on BCA, will see sequestration arise, diminish their 
capacity, and in some way diminish our national security.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today, in about half an hour, the Senate 
will vote on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2016, and I hope that an overwhelming majority of my colleagues will 
understand the importance of this legislation in these very turbulent 
and difficult times.
  The Constitution gives the Congress the power and the responsibility 
to provide for the common defense, raise and support armies, provide 
and maintain a navy, and make rules for the government and regulation 
of the land and naval forces. For 53 years, Congress has fulfilled its 
most important constitutional duties by passing the National Defense 
Authorization Act.
  It is precisely because of this legislation's critical importance to 
our national security that it is still one of the few bills in Congress 
that enjoys bipartisan support year after year.
  Indeed, this year's NDAA has been supported by Senators on both sides 
of the aisle. The Senate Committee on Armed Services overwhelmingly 
approved the NDAA in a 22-to-4 vote back in May. The full Senate 
followed by passing the NDAA in a partisan vote of 71 to 25.
  In recent weeks, some of my Democratic colleagues and the President 
have threatened to block this legislation because of disagreements 
about broader spending issues that are totally unrelated to defense and 
totally unrelated to authorizing. Everything to do with their problems 
has to do with appropriations spending, not authorization.
  The President made it clear that he will ``not fix defense without 
fixing nondefense spending.'' In this day of multiple crises around the 
world--as these crises and wars and conflicts and refugees unfold--the 
President's priority seems to be the funding mechanism, which has 
nothing to do with the defense authorization.
  Henry Kissinger, as well as many of our most respected national 
security leaders, has called it the most diverse and complex array of 
crises around the world since the end of World War II, and there are 
more refugees in the world than at any time since World War II.
  The President is threatening to veto this legislation, which contains 
vital authorities--not just authorities but the ability of our men and 
women who are serving in uniform to defend this Nation--so he can prove 
a political point. The President is threatening to veto this bill to 
defend the Nation in order to prove a political point.
  As I mentioned, the threats we confront today are far more serious 
than they were a year ago and significantly more so than when the 
Congress passed the Budget Control Act in 2011. That legislation 
arbitrarily capped defense spending and established the mindless 
mechanism of sequestration. As a result, with worldwide threats rising, 
we as a nation are on a course to cut nearly $1 trillion of defense 
spending over 10 years with no strategic or military rationale 
whatsoever for doing so.
  Every single military and national security leader who has testified 
before the Committee on Armed Services this year has denounced 
sequestration and urged its repeal as soon as possible. Indeed, each of 
our military service chiefs testified that continued defense spending 
at sequestration levels would put American lives at risk--I repeat: 
would put American lives at risk.
  Unfortunately, the Defense bill does not end sequestration. Believe 
me, if the Defense bill were capable of that, I would have done all in 
my power to make it happen. But the simple reality is that this 
legislation cannot end sequestration and it cannot fix the Budget 
Control Act.
  This legislation does not spend a dollar. It is not an appropriations 
bill; it is a policy bill. It provides the Department of Defense and 
our men and women in uniform with the authorities and support they need 
to defend the Nation.
  This legislation fully supports Presidents Obama's request of $612 
billion for national defense. Let me repeat that. The legislation gives 
the President every dollar of budget authority he requested. Yet the 
President and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
threatening to oppose this bill because it authorizes--not spends--$38 
billion in funding for readiness and training of our troops in the 
overseas contingency operations, known as the OCO account.
  Democrats believe that by placing these funds in the OCO account, the 
legislation would minimize the harm sequestration would do to our 
military but fail to do the same for domestic spending programs. This 
complaint fails to understand a basic fact: The only legislation that 
can stop sequestration, whether for defense or nondefense, is an 
appropriations bill. In fact, Republicans and Democrats are engaged 
right now in negotiations to find a bipartisan budget deal that would 
provide sequestration relief. I hope they succeed. But the idea that 
the precise location in the NDAA of certain funds for our troops will 
have any impact on the substance or outcome of these negotiations is 
ludicrous.
  The choice we faced was between OCO money and no money. When I have 
asked senior military leaders before the Armed Services Committee which 
of those options they would choose, they have said they would take the 
OCO. So do I.
  With global threats rising, it simply makes no sense to oppose a 
defense policy bill--legislation that spends no money but is full of 
vital authorities that our troops need and need badly--for a reason 
that has nothing to do with national defense spending, and it certainly 
makes no sense when the negotiations that matter to fixing 
sequestration are happening right now. That is where the President and 
Senate Democrats should be focusing their energy, not on blocking the 
Defense bill and denying our men and women in uniform the authorities 
and support they need to defend the Nation. Unfortunately, that has not 
been the case. In fact, the White House has doubled down and vowed that 
the President will veto this legislation.
  So let's be clear. The President isn't threatening to veto because of 
the existence of an overseas contingency account, which the Pentagon 
has been using for years--for years--to fund everything from readiness 
and training for our troops to Israeli missile defense, all without a 
word of protest

[[Page 15782]]

from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle or a veto threat from 
the President. This veto threat is about one thing and one thing only, 
and that is one word: politics.
  The President wants to take a stand for greater domestic spending, 
and he wants to use the vital authorities and support the men and women 
in uniform need to defend the Nation as leverage. At a time of 
increasing threats to our Nation, this is foolish, misguided, cynical, 
and dangerous. Vetoing this legislation will not solve the spending 
debate happening right now in Washington. That is something which can 
only be done through the appropriations process--not a defense 
authorization bill, not a defense policy bill. Vetoing the NDAA will 
not solve sequestration. Vetoing the NDAA will not solve the Budget 
Control Act. Rather than fixing the Budget Control Act, vetoing the 
NDAA would repeat its original sin by continuing the disturbing trend 
of holding our military men and women hostage to the whims of our 
dysfunctional politics.
  So let's be absolutely clear on what a vote against or a veto of this 
legislation really means. This is what it really means, my friends. If 
you say no, you will be saying no to urgent steps to address critical 
shortfalls in fighter aircraft across our military. You will block 12 
F-18 Super Hornets for the Navy and 6 F-35Bs for the Marine Corps.
  If you say no, you will be saying no to $1 billion in accelerated 
Navy shipbuilding, including an additional Arleigh Burke-class 
destroyer.
  If you say no, you will be saying no to upgrades to Army combat 
vehicles deploying to Europe to deter Russian aggression against our 
allies.
  If you say no to this legislation, you will be saying no to $200 
million to strengthen our cyber defenses as China, Russia, Iran, and 
North Korea attack our government and our companies relentlessly and 
with impunity.
  If you say no to the NDAA, you will be saying no to significant steps 
to improve the quality of life of the men and women serving in the All-
Volunteer Force and the needs of our wounded, ill, and injured 
servicemembers.
  If you say no to the NDAA, you will be saying no to over 30 special 
pays and bonuses that are vital to recruiting and retaining military 
doctors, nurses, nuclear engineers, and language experts.
  If you say no to the NDAA, you will be saying no to greater access to 
urgent care facilities for military families and steps taken in the 
bill to make military health care plans more portable.
  If you say no to the NDAA, you will be saying no to making it easier 
for our veterans to get the medicines they need. You will be saying no 
to the provision in this legislation that would ensure that 
servicemembers are able to get the same medicines for pain and other 
conditions when they transition from the Department of Defense to the 
Veterans' Administration.
  If you say no to the NDAA, you will be saying no to new steps to 
improve sexual assault prevention and response. You will be saying no 
to additional tools to enhance support of victims of sexual assault, 
including needed protections to end retaliation against those who 
report sex-related offenses or who intervene to support victims. You 
will be saying no to provisions that strengthen and protect the 
authority and independence of the special victims' counsel for sexual 
abuse.
  If you say no to the NDAA, you will be saying no to some of the most 
significant reforms to the Department of Defense in a generation. You 
will be saying no to the modernization of an outdated, 70-year-old 
military retirement system--a system that excludes 83 percent of all 
those who serve in the military from receiving any retirement assets 
whatsoever, including veterans of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, some 
of whom have served two, three, four tours of duty but left the 
military with nothing because they retired before reaching 20 years of 
service.
  If you say no to the NDAA, you will be saying no to a modern military 
retirement system that would extend better, more flexible retirement 
benefits to more than 80 percent of servicemembers; a system that would 
give servicemembers the choice to use a portion of their retirement 
benefits when they leave the military to help them transition to a new 
career, start a business, buy a home, or send their kids to college; a 
new system that not only improves life for our servicemembers and 
future retirees but does so while also saving the taxpayers $12 billion 
once it is fully implemented.
  If you say no to the NDAA, you will also be saying no to the most 
sweeping reforms to our defense acquisition system in 30 years. You 
will be saying no to reforms that are essential to preserving our 
military technological superiority as our adversaries develop and field 
more advanced weapons. You will be saying no to reforms that would hold 
Pentagon leaders more accountable for the decisions they make. You will 
be saying no to reforms that would improve the relationship between the 
Pentagon and our Nation's innovators, helping to ensure that our 
military can gain access to the most cutting-edge technologies.
  If you say no to the NDAA, you will be saying no to significant 
reforms to defense management. A ``no'' vote is a vote to stand in the 
way of important steps to reduce the amount of money the Department of 
Defense spends on bureaucracy and overhead, even as it cuts Army 
soldiers, Air Force fighter aircraft, and Navy ships. A ``no'' vote is 
also a vote to continue a backwards personnel system that judges our 
Pentagon's civilians not based on their talent but their time served.
  If you say no to the NDAA, you will squander a historic opportunity 
to ban torture once and for all, to achieve a reform that many of my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle--especially the Senator from 
California, Mrs. Feinstein--have sought for a decade or more: making 
the Army Field Manual the uniform interrogation standard for the entire 
U.S. Government. Voting no will squander an opportunity to stand up for 
the values that Americans have embraced for generations, while still 
enabling our interrogators to extract critical intelligence from our 
enemies. By vetoing legislation that bans torture forever, the 
President would be vetoing his own legacy. Worst of all, if you say no 
to the NDAA, you are saying no to vital authorities in support that our 
Armed Forces need to defend our Nation as we confront the most diverse 
and complex array of crises in over 70 years.
  As we speak, there are nearly 10,000 American troops in Afghanistan 
helping a new Afghan Government to secure the country and defeat our 
common terrorist enemies. But since President Obama hailed the end of 
combat operations in Afghanistan last year, ISIL has arrived on the 
battlefield and Taliban fighters have launched a major offensive to 
take territory across the country.
  So what message would it send if the President and some of my 
colleagues say no to $3.8 billion for the Afghan Security Forces to 
fight back against terrorists that wish to destroy the progress 
achieved at so costly a sacrifice?
  In the Asia-Pacific region, China's military buildup continues with a 
focus on countering and thwarting U.S. power projection. At the same 
time, China is asserting vast territorial claims in the East and South 
China Seas. Most recently, China has reclaimed nearly 3,000 acres of 
land in the South China Sea and is rapidly militarizing these features, 
building at least three airstrips to support military aircraft. With 
the addition of surface-to-air missiles and radars, these new land 
features could enable China to declare and enforce an air defense 
identification zone in the South China Sea and to hold that vital 
region at greater risk. Our allies and partners throughout the region 
are alarmed by China's behavior and are looking to the United States 
for leadership.
  So what message would it send if the President and some of my 
colleagues say no to $50 million to assist and train our allies in the 
region to increase maritime security in the maritime domain awareness 
in the South China Sea?
  Last year, Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine and annexation of 
Crimea

[[Page 15783]]

forced us to recognize that we are confronting a challenge that many 
had assumed was resigned to the history books--a strong, militarily-
capable Russia that is hostile to our interests and our values and 
seeks to challenge the international order that American leaders of 
both parties have sought to maintain since the end of World War II. 
Russia continues to destabilize Ukraine and menace our NATO allies in 
Europe with aggressive military behavior. And now, in a profound echo 
of the Cold War, Mr. Putin has deployed troops and tanks and combat 
aircraft to Syria, and they are conducting operations as we speak to 
shore up the Assad regime--the Assad regime--which has slaughtered 
240,000 of its citizens and driven millions into refugee status. And 
who are Mr. Putin's forces bombing most of all? ISIL? No. Moderate 
opposition groups backed, trained, and equipped by the United States of 
America.
  So what message would it send if the President and some of my 
colleagues say no to $300 million in security assistance for Ukraine to 
defend its sovereign territory, say no to $400 million in lethality 
upgrades to U.S. Army combat vehicles deploying to Europe to deter 
Russian aggression, and say no to $800 million for the President's own 
European Reassurance Initiative, which seeks to reassure allies of 
America's commitment to their security and the integrity of the NATO 
Alliance?
  In the Middle East, a terrorist army with tens of thousands of 
fighters has taken over a vast swath of territory and declared an 
Islamic State in the heart of one of the most strategically important 
parts of the world. Yet more than a year after the President declared 
that we would degrade and destroy ISIL, it appears that nothing we are 
currently doing is proving sufficient to achieve that strategic 
objective. The United States and our partners do not have the 
initiative. ISIL does, and it is capitalizing on our inadequate policy 
to maintain and enhance our initiative, as they have for the past 4 
years. Indeed, the situation on the ground is now taking yet another 
dramatic turn for the worse, as several recent events have made clear.
  So what message would it send if the President and some of my 
colleagues say no to $1.1 billion of security assistance and 
cooperation for our allies in the region to help us fight ISIL? What 
message would it send to our ally Israel to say no to hundreds of 
millions of dollars of vital support for our common efforts in missile 
defense and countering terrorist tunnels? These capabilities are more 
important than ever for Israel and the United States in the wake of the 
President's nuclear agreement with Iran, and this legislation fully 
authorizes those programs. Saying no to the NDAA means saying no to 
this vital security cooperation with Israel.
  For 4 years, Bashar al-Assad has waged war on the Syrian people. The 
United States has stood idly by as well over 230,000 have been killed, 
1 million injured, 8 million displaced, and 4 million forced to seek 
refuge abroad. The Syrian conflict has now created the largest refugee 
crisis in Europe since World War II. Now Russia has stepped in to prop 
up the murderous regime and kill more Syrians. With Syria descending 
deeper into chaos, and the world more unstable than ever, what message 
would it send if the Commander in Chief and some of my colleagues see 
this as a good time to say no to the National Defense Authorization 
Act?
  This is the same conclusion that some of the major military service 
organizations have also reached, and they have written open letters to 
the President urging him not to veto the NDAA. Their message should be 
heeded by all of my colleagues as we prepare to cast our votes. The 
Military Officers Association of America wrote:

       [T]he fact is that we are still a nation at war, and this 
     legislation is vital to fulfilling wartime requirements. With 
     multiple contentious issues remaining for Congress to tackle 
     this year, and very little legislative time to complete those 
     crucial actions, this is not the time to add the already 
     extremely daunting burden of legislative challenges by 
     vetoing the defense authorization bill.

  The Reserve Officers Association wrote:

       [The NDAA] contains crucial provisions for the military, 
     nation's security, and the welfare of those who serve. [The 
     Reserve Officers Association] has a membership of 50,000 
     former and currently serving officers and noncommissioned 
     officers [and] represents all the uniformed services of the 
     United States who would be favorably affected by your signing 
     this bill into law.

  I also want to read from a recent Washington Post editorial:

       American Presidents rarely veto national defense 
     authorization bills, since they are, well, vital to national 
     security. . . . Refusing to sign this bill would make 
     history, but not in a good way. Mr. Obama should let it 
     become law and seek other sources of leverage in pursuing his 
     legitimate goals for domestic sequestration relief.

  Time and again, President Obama has failed to do the right thing when 
it could matter most--in Afghanistan, in the Pacific, in Ukraine, in 
Iraq, and in Syria. Vetoing the NDAA would be yet another of these 
failures, and it would be reminiscent of a bygone day, when the 
fecklessness of those days were so accurately described by Winston 
Churchill. On the floor of the House of Commons, he said:

       When the situation was manageable it was neglected, and now 
     that it is thoroughly out of hand we apply too late the 
     remedies which then might have effected a cure. There is 
     nothing new in the story. It is as old as the sibylline 
     books. It falls into that long, dismal catalogue of the 
     fruitlessness of experience and the confirmed unteachability 
     of mankind. Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when 
     action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, 
     confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-
     preservation strikes its jarring gong--these are the features 
     which constitute the endless repetition of history.

  My colleagues, for 53 years Congress has passed a National Defense 
Authorization Act, and at perhaps no time in the past half century has 
this legislation been more important. Everywhere we look around the 
world there are reminders of exactly why we need this National Defense 
Authorization Act. I understand the deeply held beliefs of many of my 
colleagues about the spending issues that have divided the Congress for 
the last 4 years. But this is not a spending bill. It is a policy bill. 
It is a reform bill. It is a bill that accomplishes what the 
Constitution demands of us and what the American people expect of us. 
It is a bill that gives our men and women in uniform, many of whom are 
still in harm's way around the world today, the vital authorities and 
support they need to defend our Nation. And it is a bill that deserves 
the support of the Senate.
  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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the bill before us is not fiscally 
responsible. Our troops deserve real funding, not budget gimmickry. 
This bill does not do the job. My Republican friends like to talk about 
the deficit and the debt and the need to get our fiscal house in order, 
but their actions speak louder than their words. Now they are 
supporting legislation that increases deficit spending and increases 
the burden on our children and grandchildren. As a result, this bill 
violates the budget law.
  Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending measure 
violates section 3101 of S. Con. Res. 11, the concurrent resolution on 
the budget for fiscal year 2016.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of 
applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections 
of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 1735, and I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time 
has expired.

[[Page 15784]]

  The question is on agreeing to the motion to waive.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. 
Roberts), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 71, nays 26, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 276 Leg.]

                                YEAS--71

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

                                NAYS--26

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Graham
     Roberts
     Rubio
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 71, the nays are 
26.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to and the point of order falls.
  The question occurs on adoption of the conference report to accompany 
H.R. 1735.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. 
Roberts), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 70, nays 27, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 277 Leg.]

                                YEAS--70

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

                                NAYS--27

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Graham
     Roberts
     Rubio
  The conference report was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________