[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8675-8700]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016

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

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

  Pending:

       McCain amendment No. 1463, in the nature of a substitute.
       McCain amendment No. 1456 (to amendment No. 1463), to 
     require additional information supporting long-range plans 
     for construction of naval vessels.
       Reed amendment No. 1521 (to amendment No. 1463), to limit 
     the availability of amounts authorized to be appropriated for 
     overseas contingency operations pending relief from the 
     spending limits under the Budget Control Act of 2011.
       Portman amendment No. 1522 (to amendment No. 1463), to 
     provide additional amounts for procurement and for research, 
     development, test, and evaluation for Stryker Lethality 
     Upgrades, and to provide an offset.
       Reed (for Bennet) amendment No. 1540 (to amendment No. 
     1463), to require the Comptroller General of the United 
     States to brief and submit a report to Congress on the 
     administration and oversight by the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs of contracts for the design and construction of major 
     medical facility projects.
       Cornyn amendment No. 1486 (to amendment No. 1463), to 
     require reporting on energy security issues involving Europe 
     and the Russian Federation, and to express the sense of 
     Congress regarding ways the United States could help 
     vulnerable allies and partners with energy security.
       Reed (for Shaheen) amendment No. 1494 (to amendment No. 
     1463), to revise the definition of spouse for purposes of 
     veterans benefits in recognition of new State definitions of 
     spouse.
       Tillis amendment No. 1506 (to amendment No. 1463), to 
     provide for the stationing of C-130 H aircraft avionics 
     previously modified by the Avionics Modernization Program 
     (AMP) in support of daily training and contingency 
     requirements for Airborne and Special Operations Forces.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 30 
minutes equally divided in the usual form.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that there will be 
a vote at 10:15 a.m.; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 30 minutes of debate prior to 
the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I just listened to the words of the Senate minority 
leader concerning his views on an authorization bill--not an 
appropriations bill, not a funding bill but an authorization bill. I 
would hope the minority leader and, frankly, my colleague and friend, 
Senator Reid, would pay attention to what is going on in the world 
today.
  I refer to the Washington Post this morning and an article entitled 
``Deadly fighting tests truce in Ukraine.''
  As many of us predicted, Vladmir Putin will continue his aggression 
and dismemberment of the European nation for the first time in 70 
years.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article entitled 
``Deadly fighting tests truce in Ukraine'' be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, June 4, 2015]

                 Deadly Fighting Tests Truce in Ukraine

                         (By Karoun Demirjian)

       Moscow.--Continued skirmishes between pro-Russian rebels 
     and government forces in eastern Ukraine escalated Wednesday 
     into the first major battle in months, leaving at least 18 
     dead and further threatening a tenuous cease-fire agreement 
     signed in February.
       Both sides traded accusations about who had started the 
     fighting in Marinka, a suburb of Donetsk on the government-
     held side of the cease-fire line. Separatists reported 15 
     dead, and three Ukrainian soldiers were killed, according to 
     a Facebook post by Yuriy Biryukov, an adviser to Ukrainian 
     President Petro Poroshenko.
       ``They tried to move forward. The Ukrainian military are 
     repelling all attacks, and the situation is under control,'' 
     Col. Andriy Lysenko, a spokesman for Ukraine's National 
     Security and Defense Council, said at a news conference 
     Wednesday in Kiev. ``Marinka and Krasnohorivka are under our 
     control.''
       But the head of the separatists' militia said they were 
     only defending themselves against an assault by the pro-Kiev 
     forces.
       ``Trying to announce that we are storming Marinka--this is 
     a provocation by Kiev,'' said Vladimir Kononov, the militias' 
     top defense official. ``We already are in Marinka.''
       Since February, top diplomats from the United States and 
     Europe have participated in several rounds of shuttle 
     diplomacy aimed at settling the conflict and persuading the 
     rebels and the government to fully implement the peace 
     agreement signed in Minsk, Belarus.
       Last month, U.S. Secretary of State John F. Kerry and 
     Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland made back-to-
     back trips to Russia, urging that country's leaders to use 
     their influence over the separatists in eastern Ukraine to 
     push them to parley with Kiev. Groups from both sides were 
     supposed to conclude an opening round of talks in Ukraine 
     this week to address various points of contention.
       Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk accused Russia 
     on Wednesday of intentionally undermining the peace process 
     and ordering pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine ``to start a 
     military operation.''
       The surge in violence also comes as Western nations are 
     gearing up for this weekend's Group of Seven summit in 
     Germany--an assembly of nations from which Russia was ousted 
     when it annexed Crimea last year.
       That annexation happened after the upper house of the 
     Russian parliament met in an emergency session to give 
     President Vladimir Putin the authority to send troops abroad.
       On Wednesday, the speaker of the upper house told lawmakers 
     that there may be cause to hold a similar emergency session 
     soon but did not give a specific reason for the warning.

  Mr. McCAIN. Perhaps the minority leader and others have missed this 
article: ``Syria likely used chlorine gas in recent bombing raids, 
rights group says.''

       A prominent human rights group accused the Syrian 
     government Wednesday of using toxic chemicals during a recent 
     surge in attacks involving barrel bombs on rebel-held areas 
     in northern Syria.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, June 4, 2015]

 Syria Likely Used Chlorine Gas in Recent Bombing Raids, Rights Group 
                                  Says

                            (By Hugh Naylor)

       Beirut.--A prominent human rights group accused the Syrian 
     government Wednesday of using toxic chemicals during a recent 
     surge in attacks involving barrel bombs on rebel-held areas 
     in northern Syria.
       Human Rights Watch said chlorine gas was probably used in 
     at least three bombing raids that targeted Idlib province in 
     April and last month, after the area fell to a powerful new 
     rebel coalition. That coalition and other insurgent groups 
     have recently inflicted heavy losses on the regime of 
     President Bashar al-Assad in the north and east of Syria.
       Assad's government has been accused by Western countries of 
     using chemical weapons over the course of the four-year 
     conflict, including an attack involving sarin gas in 2013 
     that killed hundreds of people in a suburb of the capital.
       Regime opponents and activists allege that Assad's forces 
     have punished residents in rebel-controlled areas with 
     barrages of the crude bombs, which are built from oil barrels 
     or gas cylinders and can be filled with toxic

[[Page 8676]]

     chemicals such as chlorine gas. Barrel bombs have been 
     dropped by regime helicopters and airplanes on residential 
     areas, hospitals and markets, killing thousands of civilians, 
     according to human rights groups.
       Another group said two barrel bombings on Wednesday killed 
     at least 24 people, including children, in Idlib and rebel-
     held areas of Aleppo province. The British-based Syrian 
     Observatory for Human Rights said that it expected the death 
     toll to climb from those attacks.
       In its Wednesday report, Human Right Watch said evidence 
     indicates that three attacks in April and May on towns in 
     Idlib involved barrel bombs containing toxic chemicals. The 
     group was unable to confirm the exact toxin used in the 
     attacks, which it said killed two people and affected 127. 
     But it cited chlorine as the likely culprit based on 
     interviews with first responders and doctors, as well as an 
     examination of photographs and videos.
       The total number of attacks involving chlorine gas during 
     that time is probably much higher, according to the report, 
     which was released to coincide with the U.N. Security 
     Council's regular monthly meeting on chemical weapons in 
     Syria. Citing evidence provided by doctors in Idlib, the 
     group said 24 suspected chlorine gas attacks were carried out 
     between May 16 and May 19, killing at least nine people and 
     affecting over 500.
       ``While Security Council members deliberate over next steps 
     at a snail's pace, toxic chemicals are raining down on 
     civilians in Syria,'' Philippe Bolopion, Human Rights Watch's 
     U.N. and crisis advocacy director, said in a statement.
       He said the Security Council should impose sanctions for 
     the attacks.
       In 2013, the Syrian government agreed to a deal brokered by 
     the United States and Russia to eliminate its chemical 
     weapons arsenal, forestalling potential U.S. airstrikes. The 
     Syrian government, which denies using chemical weapons, 
     agreed to join the Organization for the Prohibition of 
     Chemical Weapons (OPCW) as part of the agreement.
       Last month, reports emerged that OPCW inspectors found 
     traces of sarin and VX nerve agent at a military research 
     site in Syria, raising suspicion that the government had not 
     eliminated its chemical weapons stockpiles.

  Mr. McCAIN. On the front page of the New York Times this morning: 
``ISIS Making Political Gains, Group Stakes Claim As Protector of 
Sunnis.''

       Ideologically unified, the Islamic State is emerging as a 
     social and political movement in many Sunni areas, filling a 
     void in the absence of solid national identity and security. 
     At the same time, it responds brutally to any other Sunni 
     group, militant or civilian, that poses a challenge to its 
     supremacy.
       That dual strategy, purporting to represent Sunni interests 
     and attacking any group that vies to play the same role, has 
     allowed it to grow in the face of withering airstrikes.

  In the news yesterday:

       ISIS has closed off a dam to the north of Ramadi, cutting 
     water supplies to pro-government towns downstream and making 
     it easier for its fighters to attack government forces. ISIS 
     militants are opening only two or three of the dam's 26 gates 
     on the Euphrates River, denying water to numerous cities and 
     using water as a critical weapon to gain more influence and 
     territory.

  ``Iraq: ISIS fighters close Ramadi dam gates, cut off water to 
loyalist towns,'' that was on CNN.
  ``President Hassan Rouhani stated on Tuesday that,'' according to 
Reuters, ```The Iranian nation and government will remain at the side 
of the Syrian nation and government until the end of the road.' He also 
pledged to send reinforcements in backing Bashar al-Assad.''
  ``U.S.: Shiite Fighters in Iraq Are a Necessary, if Unlikely, Ally''

       Retired Marine Gen. John Allen, said the militias have an 
     important role to play in liberating Anbar, so long as they 
     ``take command from the central authority.''

  ``Embedding U.S. forces can help inject energy into leadership 
development of new and weaker Iraqi commanders. . . .''
  AFP Beirut: ``Iraq, Iran fighters deployed to defend Damascus.''

       Thousands of Iranian and Iraqi forces have been deployed in 
     Syria in past weeks to bolster the defences of Damascus and 
     its surroundings, a Syrian security force told AFP on 
     Wednesday.
       Iran's official news agency IRNA quoted elite Revolutionary 
     Guards General Qassem Soleimani as saying ``in the coming 
     days the world will be surprised by what we are preparing, in 
     cooperation with Syrian military leaders.''

  I point out to my colleagues, Qassem Soleimani is the guy who sent 
the copper-tipped IEDs into Iraq that killed hundreds of marines and 
soldiers and also was seen prominently in Baghdad and other parts of 
Iraq leading the Shiite militias.
  Some of that is complicated. Some of it is impossible to make up.
  Finally, the New York Times article on June 2: ``Assad's Forces May 
Be Aiding New ISIS Surge.''

       Building on recent gains in Iraq and Syria, Islamic State 
     militants are marching across northern Syria toward Aleppo, 
     Syria's largest city, helped along, their opponents say, by 
     the forces of President Bashar al-Assad.

  Finally, ``Exclusive: Syrian Rebels Backing Out of U.S. Fight Vs. 
ISIS.''
  Syrian rebels are backing out because they are not being protected by 
the United States of America and being barrel-bombed.
  So I will not even go into the crisis in the Far East, where China is 
now militarizing islands in international waters.
  So here we are arguing about the way the authorization for America's 
defense is funded, and the minority leader just announced they would 
take a stand because they don't like the way it is funded. I don't like 
the way it is funded. But don't those who are in opposition to this 
have some sense of reality as to what is going on in the world; that if 
we don't authorize the ability to defend this Nation and its national 
security interests--which in the words of Henry Kissinger before the 
Armed Services Committee, ``The world has not seen more crises since 
the end of World War II.''
  I say, with respect to my good friend Senator Reid, haven't you got 
your priorities skewed? Don't you understand this is an authorization 
bill? Don't you understand that if you want to fight, fight it on 
appropriations? Don't you understand--I am sure you do--that this is 
about the welfare and benefit of the men and women who are serving?
  I am as opposed to sequestration as anybody. I have watched the 
hearings on the Senate Armed Services Committee, where the military 
leaders have said sequestration is putting the lives of the men and 
women serving in uniform in greater danger. That should be enough 
alone, but we are playing the hand we are dealt. That fight should not 
take place on an authorization bill.
  This authorizes reforms of the Pentagon. This authorizes reforms of 
the retirement system, which is long overdue. It authorizes our ability 
to acquire the weapons and training which are necessary to defend this 
Nation. It doesn't fund them. It doesn't fund them; it authorizes them.
  After intense hearings, months and months of hearings, debate, work 
in the Senate Armed Services Committee, we have come up with a product 
that I am extremely proud of.
  I understand my friend from Rhode Island will be proposing an 
amendment later on to nullify the funding of OCO, which would then, by 
the way, have the effect of reducing the funding and authorization 
rather dramatically and cancel many vitally needed programs, equipment, 
and training for the men and women who are serving in the military. 
That is fine, but that will be defeated.
  Once it is defeated, I hope and pray we will then move forward with 
the amendment process, which has been absent for the last 2 years--
totally absent for the last 2 years--and not--for the first time in 53 
years--not pass a Defense authorization bill through the Congress of 
the United States. For 53 years, through Democratic and Republican 
majorities, through liberal and conservative, we have authorized. We 
have authorized because our highest responsibility is the security of 
this Nation.
  I urge all of my colleagues, if we want to have this fight, have it 
on the appropriations bill, the money bill. This is authorization. For 
you to distort it in some way and to equate it with a funding 
mechanism, in my view, is intellectual sophistry.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona is correct, every 
uniformed Chief of service came before us and said the greatest crisis 
facing the military process was sequestration, the Budget Control Act, 
and they asked us to change it, and we didn't change it.
  If we are going to change it, then we have to make every effort and 
take

[[Page 8677]]

every step to make those changes, and that is the point I have tried to 
raise in this committee--not by eliminating the funds available to the 
military but by making these funds subject to responsible action with 
following the request of the defense officials to eliminate 
sequestration. I think we should do it as soon as possible. If we don't 
take every opportunity to make that case and every action possible to 
make that case, then we will be essentially rejecting the advice of our 
senior military leaders.
  Suggesting that this bill is somehow so totally disconnected to the 
appropriations process is belied by the title of the bill. This is an 
act to authorize appropriations for the fiscal year 2016 for the 
military activities for the Department of Defense, for military 
construction, the defense activities in the Department of Energy. We 
are directly linked to the appropriations process. In the ideal world, 
the one that we authorize and would like to see, nothing can be 
appropriated, no dime can be spent, unless we have authorized it.
  What we have done, effectively, in the bill--and I think it is not 
because it is the chairman's first choice but because it was the only 
available option given the budget resolution--is that we have taken the 
overseas contingency account, bolstered it up dramatically, and set a 
new sort of pathway, which next year, unless we resolve this issue of 
the Budget Control Act, we will come back again with more money--and 
the following year.
  Also, as has been pointed out, we will have situations where we will 
find some very strange things happening in our OCO account, because we 
can't fund legitimate concerns of the government in other areas because 
of caps. That is essentially what happened in the eighties. That is why 
we have a significant amount of medical research money in the 
Department of Defense--not because the Department of Defense does it 
but because that was the only available option in the eighties and 
nineties to get money to where we thought we would need it.
  I think the other issue here, too, is very implicit in our activity, 
which is that this bill is aimed at the Department of Defense and the 
military activities of the Department of Energy. Our national security 
is much more than that. The chairman read quite accurately reports 
about activity in the world, but up my way, in Roslindale, MA, there 
was an alleged terrorist who was confronted by an FBI agent and a 
Massachusetts police officer. That is the kind of terrorism a lot of 
people are concerned about, and if we sequester and cut off funding for 
the Department of Justice and the FBI and the Customs Service, et 
cetera, we will see this threat growing. So this is about a broader 
view, a wider view, and the overall mass security of the United States.
  I know we have some votes pending, and I would like to go ahead and 
allow for my colleague to speak.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional 
minutes--the vote was scheduled at a quarter after--an additional 5 
minutes in order to allow 3 minutes for the Senator from Colorado and 3 
minutes for the other Senator from Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. I thank the Senator from Arizona for that additional time 
and for his commitment and the ranking member's commitment to our 
national security. I deeply appreciate it.


                           Amendment No. 1540

  Mr. President, I would like to talk briefly about amendment 1540, 
which the Senate will consider shortly. I am here with my colleague 
Senator Gardner from Colorado. We are here on this bipartisan amendment 
to require the Government Accounting Office to audit the way the 
Veterans' Administration constructs major medical facilities and help 
identify exactly where the money went on some of these projects.
  The Veterans' Administration is building several major medical 
facilities across the country, including one in Aurora, CO.
  The project in Colorado has been grossly mismanaged leading to 
excessive cost overruns. Other projects across the country have had 
similar problems for years. For years, our delegation and practically 
anyone who has been involved with the Aurora project--almost anybody 
who has driven by the Aurora project has pushed the VA to acknowledge 
that there is actually a problem and to come up with a plan to fix it. 
Unfortunately, the VA has so far failed to do this, and veterans across 
the Rocky Mountain region have continued to wait for this new medical 
center.
  We should ensure and must ensure that the mistakes on the Aurora 
project never happen again, but we all concluded that with greater 
accountability and transparency the right thing to do is to move 
forward and complete this critical facility.
  As many of us have experienced up here, imposing accountability and 
transparency on an enormous Federal bureaucracy is elusive and 
complicated. The GAO has the necessary expertise to identify realistic, 
hard reforms and to make them stick.
  We have to hold the VA accountable to our taxpayers so we can move 
forward to give the Rocky Mountain region's veterans the care they 
need. The VA and Congress are going to have to work together to get 
this project back on track. Finding the money to do this will be 
painful. It will be difficult, which is why we need to ensure that we 
account for every dollar that has been spent. But failing to complete 
this hospital is not an option. It would be a broken promise. Having a 
half-finished hospital in Colorado would be a national disgrace, and on 
behalf of our veterans, we cannot allow it to happen. It would be a 
disservice--worse than a disservice--a broken promise of the worst kind 
to the hundreds of thousands of veterans across the Rocky Mountain 
region and throughout the United States.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I wish to express my 
gratitude to my colleague from Colorado, Senator Gardner, for joining 
me on this important amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I, too, echo the thanks to my colleague 
from Colorado, Senator Bennet, for his leadership on this effort. It is 
time that we take the VA hospital from the thorn of the VA system to 
the crown of the VA system, which we know it will be once it is 
completed. But in the meantime, there is a tremendous amount of work we 
have to do. I would like to thank the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee for allowing this time today on the floor.
  I would note that there are four Members of this body who have 
actually visited the facility in Denver in recent months. The Presiding 
Officer has witnessed this hole in the ground right now that has 
already spent hundreds of millions of dollars, projected to be $1.73 
billion at this point.
  We have talked about the need to complete it and have committed to 
that need to finish this project, along with the chairman of the 
Veterans' Committee, who has joined us on the floor today, Senator 
Isakson, who is here today with us, who is in support of this amendment 
to bring more accountability to the VA system so that we can understand 
what went wrong when they were building not only the Aurora facility 
but what went wrong around the country as project after project has 
seen cost overruns and delays.
  Veterans gathered this past week in Colorado to rally to finish the 
darn thing. We have a Veterans' Administration that time and time again 
has failed to take into account the necessary measures and policies to 
fix it and to prevent it from ever happening again. With this 
amendment, we can start to find out where they went wrong and to hold 
them accountable. When the only person who has been fired is the person 
who said we were going to have a problem, there is something wrong with 
that.
  I commend Senator Bennet for his leadership on fixing this problem, 
building the hospital, and giving our veterans what they were promised.
  I thank the Presiding Officer for his time today. I thank the 
chairman of

[[Page 8678]]

the committee for enduring this conversation this morning.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?


                            Floor Privileges

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have a list of staff members of the 
Committee on Armed Services and I ask unanimous consent that those 
staffers on the list be granted the privilege of the floor at all times 
during the Senate's consideration of and votes relating to H.R. 1735, 
the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2016.
  The list is as follows:

       Barker, Adam; Barney, Steven; Bennett, Jody; Borawski, 
     June; Brewer, Leah; Brose, Christian; Chuhta, Carolyn; Clark, 
     Jon; Clark, Samantha; Davis, Lauren; Donovan, Matt; Edelman, 
     Kathryn; Edwards, Allen; Epstein, Jonathan; Everett, 
     Elizabeth; Goel, Anish; Goffus, Tom; Greene, Creighton; 
     Greenwalt, Bill; Guzelsu, Ozge; Hayes, Jeremy; Hickey, James; 
     Howard, Gary; Kerber, Jackie; King, Elizabeth; Kuiken, Mike.
       Leeling, Gary; Lehman, John; Lerner, Daniel; Lilly, Greg; 
     McConnell, Kirk; McNamara, Maggie; Monahan, Bill; Nicolas, 
     Natalie; Noblet, Mike; Patout, Brad; Potter, Jason; Quirk, 
     John; Salmon, Diem; Sawyer, Brendan; Sayers, Eric; 
     Scheunemann, Leah; Seraphin, Arun; Soofer, Rob; Sterling, 
     Cord; Waisanen, Robert; Walker, Barry; Walker, Dustin; 
     Wheelbarger, Katie; White, Jennifer.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.


                           Amendment No. 1522

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, the amendment pending before us now is the 
Portman amendment proposed by the Senator from Ohio. We spoke about it 
yesterday.
  First, let me recognize that he is trying to assist the Army in 
modernizing the Stryker, which is a very critical piece of equipment. 
But I want to reiterate some of the concerns I have about the 
amendment. I know Senator Portman will be here shortly to make a final 
comment on the amendment. The amendment would add $371 million of 
funding for procurement, research, and development of the lethality 
upgrade to the Stryker program.
  I do not have to tell anyone around here that we are in a very tough 
budget situation. We have to look very closely at every request. The 
traditional way it is done is that there will be in the President's 
budget the request by the service department, including the Department 
of Army, and then the Army will submit an unfunded requirements list--
those priority elements that have not made the cut, if you will, in the 
President's budget. That was done in March. I understand that this 
whole requirement for the Stryker lethality upgrade came in in April. 
There is an issue of unfortunate timing. But, nevertheless, because we 
did not have the opportunity to look at this as part of the overall 
unfunded requirements list--nor the Army, for that matter--we really do 
not have a sense of the priority. Is this the most important program 
that we can invest $371 million in at this moment for the benefit of 
the Army? Therefore, I am very concerned that we are sort of moving 
forward without full and careful analysis both by the Department of the 
Army and by the committee, and we need, at this particular moment, this 
difficult time, to have that type of analysis.
  The other issue here, too, is that this is the first step in a 
multiyear process. We are not quite sure how much additional funding 
will be needed over the next several years. It is clear from the Army 
that additional funding will be needed.
  So we are at this time, without the usual review by the Army and by 
the committee, committing ourselves, perhaps, to significant funding 
going forward. The present estimate is that it will cost $3.8 million 
per vehicle. The plan is to upgrade about 81 vehicles. But it is 
something that, again, could be more expensive and will commit us over 
several years.
  The funding--the vast majority of it--is going to be dedicated to one 
plant in a single State. Indeed, I think, generally and appropriately, 
it is a concern of the Senator from Ohio because most of the work will 
be done in Ohio. I think, again, he should be commended for being 
interested in what is happening in his home State.
  So I appreciate the demand, but I just do not think this has gone 
through the process sufficiently enough for us to make that type of 
commitment today on the floor, and I will be opposing it right now.
  I would also point out two other factors. First, the Army has the 
capability going forward, if this program becomes so critical and they 
raise it to the highest priority, to request a reprogramming of funds, 
to move money from one less significant priority to this program. That 
is an option they have, and that is an option they may well choose to 
use, but it will only be after their careful consideration of the other 
priorities that are facing the Army. I think that is a better way to do 
it.
  The other factor I would point out is that the pay-for for this 
program is the foreign currency account. Basically, that is a hedge 
within the Department of Defense for their international transactions 
and the value of the U.S. dollar versus other currency. Well, the 
dollar is strong, and so there appears to be additional excess funds in 
that account, but currency over the next year could change 
dramatically. We have already put significant pressure on this supposed 
excess funding. We have reduced by about $550 million the request that 
the Department of Defense has made for this hedge fund, if you will, 
against currency changes in the world going forward in their 
acquisition process. I know the House has used more. But I think we 
have been careful not to try to put too much weight on this account.
  So for all of these reasons, I would urge my colleagues to oppose the 
amendment. Later, there will be an opportunity for the Department of 
the Army to reprogram funds if it is necessary.
  I think this should have been done in the context of a careful review 
of all their priorities so we know exactly where it stands. Again, I 
think we are putting too much pressure on this currency account. It 
might turn out to evaporate these supposed savings.
  I yield the floor since I see the Senator from Ohio has arrived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, yesterday I talked about an amendment 
that is absolutely crucial that we include in this legislation. Again, 
I commend the chairman, Senator McCain, and the ranking member, Senator 
Reed, for their work on this underlying bill. But there is something 
missing, and it is very clear to everybody who is looking at this issue 
objectively, particularly what is going on right now on the eastern 
border of Ukraine. We do not have the ability in Europe, because we 
have pulled our armored units out, to say with credibility that we have 
the capacity to address the very real challenge now, unfortunately, 
that is emerging in Europe.
  Last night, as some of you know, Russian and separatist forces 
launched an offensive again. I am told it is the largest attack since 
the February Minsk agreement. So this is just what so many people 
predicted, including President Poroshenko and others in Ukraine, which 
is that things are heating up again on the eastern border of Ukraine. 
The NATO forces--the United States of American in particular--need to 
be sure they have in Europe the ability to at least have some 
credibility to say they can respond to this.
  We have moved our armored units out, meaning there are not Abrams 
tanks there, except for a few units that were up in the Baltics on a 
temporary basis this spring. I visited them a couple of months ago. 
They are doing a terrific job, but they are leaving.
  What the Army has said is, we want to allow our troops who are there 
to be able to up-armor, particularly with a weapon--a 30-millimeter 
cannon rather than a .50-caliber machine gun--on our Stryker vehicles 
to be able to have some credibility there, to be able to say that we 
have armored units in Europe that can respond to these new challenges. 
The Army has asked for this. The Army wants this. They are pleading for 
it because the soldiers who are there know they will not be able to 
perform their mission without this enhanced capability.

[[Page 8679]]

  We had this debate yesterday on the floor. I do not think Senator 
Reed and other Democrats necessarily disagree with the substance of 
this amendment. What they have said is they are concerned about the 
pay-for. Well, let's talk about the pay-for. The pay-for is taking this 
out of an account that is already being used for other purposes. It is 
already being used by the House Armed Services Committee. In fact, the 
House Armed Services Committee has already taken more funds out of this 
account than all of the funds in the SASC committee, the Senate 
committee, plus this amount that I believe ought to be taken out of 
this account. This is called the foreign currency fluctuation account 
at the Department of Defense.
  GAO, which is the body that looks at these issues from our 
perspective, from a legislative branch perspective--they are the 
auditors--GAO has estimated that the Pentagon will have $1.86 billion 
in surplus from these fluctuations by the end of fiscal year 2016.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PORTMAN. So GAO has looked at this. They have said there will be 
$1.86 billion in surplus in these fluctuation accounts at the end of 
fiscal year 2016. They have actually updated their figures now with 
even more recent data, and they have just adjusted the 2016 surplus 
even higher to $2.02 billion. No one has produced a currency projection 
to counter this GAO estimate. So we are talking about over $2 billion 
in this account that is available.
  By the way, the money we are talking about here is not going to be 
taken and used for other readiness priorities because the SASC bill has 
already swept up that money for readiness. This money will be sitting 
in a reserve fund. The Pentagon does not need to be sitting on this 
size of a reserve fund--essentially a slush fund--when we do have these 
needs that have been identified. The Army has made a formal request for 
these. They have asked for assistance here. These deployed units need 
this assistance. They said they need it. We ought to put this to good 
use--namely, for an urgent requirement like this one.
  Again, if you look at the House bill versus the Senate bill, the 
House has used more of this funding in this reserve fund, this slush 
fund, than we have used even when you include this additional 
requirement I am talking about today.
  So this notion that somehow we cannot do this because the offset is 
not good--it just does not make any sense. It does not fit with what 
GAO has said, and it does not fit with what the House has done. So I do 
not know what the objection is, but I tell you what--if you vote 
against this, then you are saying that our troops in Europe ought not 
to have the capability that they have asked for, that they need.
  Admittedly, this came late. I am sorry about that. It should have 
come with it sooner. This was a requirement they had identified, but 
they had identified needing it later by 2020. Now, they need it now, 
and they need it now because the situation has changed in Europe.
  We have to be flexible to be able to respond to that change. If we 
wait another 12 months, another year to do this, who knows what is 
going to happen. But I know one thing, having been in Eastern Europe 
recently, I know those countries of Eastern Europe and, in fact, those 
countries on the European Continent--our NATO partners, in particular, 
but also Ukraine--are looking to the United States of America to show 
that the commitment we have made on paper, to ensure we have that 
commitment in terms of our capability on the ground in Europe.
  Again, this is an issue where I think we should come together as 
Democrats and Republicans. It is a bipartisan amendment. I commend 
Senator Peters for identifying this need with the Army.
  I understand Senator Reed's concern that this came late in the 
process, but it is here. The request has been made. I would sure hope 
we would be able to come together today, given what is happening right 
now on the eastern border of Ukraine, to ensure that we send a strong 
message that, at a minimum, we are going to meet these requirements 
that the Army has insisted they need to be able to give our troops what 
they need to be able to keep the peace in this important part of the 
world.
  I thank the Presiding Officer for the time. I urge my colleagues to 
support the amendment.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, again, I recognize the way that the Senator 
from Ohio is articulating a need of the military. The question is how 
high the priority is.
  Just one point I wish to make is that we do understand acutely the 
crisis in the Crimea, et cetera. The availability of this equipment 
would not be instantaneous. It would take many months to do the 
upgrade, to do the evaluations, et cetera.
  Again, I think the best approach would be to allow the Department of 
the Army to make a judgment, to reprogram, if necessary, and to get 
this moving.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs 
on agreeing to amendment No. 1522, offered by the Senator from Ohio, 
Mr. Portman.
  Mr. PORTMAN. 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 Nevada (Mr. 
Heller), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 34, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 202 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     King
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--34

     Baldwin
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cardin
     Carper
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heitkamp
     Kaine
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Nelson
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Tester
     Udall
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Boxer
     Graham
     Heller
     Rubio
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 1522) was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1540

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now 
occurs on amendment No. 1540, offered by the Senator from Rhode Island, 
Mr. Reed, for Mr. Bennet.
  If there is no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1540) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.

[[Page 8680]]




                Amendment No. 1473 to Amendment No. 1463

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment in order to call up amendment No. 1473.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1473 to amendment No. 1463.

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

        (Purpose: To limit the retirement of Army combat units)

       On page 38, line 12, insert after ``fighter aircraft'' the 
     following: ``and army combat units''.
       On page 43, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
       (e) Minimum Number of Army Brigade Combat Teams.--Section 
     3062 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e)(1) Effective October 1, 2015, the Secretary of the 
     Army shall maintain a total number of brigade combat teams 
     for the regular and reserve components of the Army of not 
     fewer than 32 brigade combat teams.
       ``(2) In this subsection, the term ` brigade combat team' 
     means any unit that consists of--
       ``(A) an arms branch maneuver brigade;
       ``(B) its assigned support units; and
       ``(C) its assigned fire teams''.
       (f) Limitation on Elimination of Army Brigade Combat 
     Teams.--
       (1) Limitation.--The Secretary of the Army may not proceed 
     with any decision to reduce the number of brigade combat 
     teams for the regular Army to fewer than 32 brigade combat 
     teams.
       (2) Additional limitation on retirement.--The Secretary may 
     not eliminate any brigade combat team from the brigade combat 
     teams of the regular Army as of the date of the enactment of 
     this Act until the later of the following:
       (A) The date that is 30 days after the date on which the 
     Secretary submits the report required under paragraph (3).
       (B) The date that is 30 days after the date on which the 
     Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees 
     that--
       (i) the elimination of Army brigade combat teams will not 
     increase the operational risk of meeting the National Defense 
     Strategy; and
       (ii) the reduction of such combat teams does not reduce the 
     total number of brigade combat teams of the Army to fewer 
     than 32 brigade combat teams.
       (3) Report on elimination of brigade combat teams.--The 
     Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense 
     committees a report setting forth the following:
       (A) The rationale for any proposed reduction of the total 
     strength of the Army, including the National Guard and 
     Reserves, below the strength provided in subsection (e) of 
     section 3062 of title 10, United States Code (as amended by 
     subsection (e) of this section), and an operational analysis 
     of the total strength of the Army that demonstrates 
     performance of the designated mission at an equal or greater 
     level of effectiveness as the personnel of the Army so 
     reduced.
       (B) An assessment of the implications for the Army, the 
     Army National Guard of the United States, and the Army 
     Reserve of the force mix ratio of Army troop strengths and 
     combat units after such reduction.
       (C) Such other matters relating to the reduction of the 
     total strength of the Army as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.
       (g) Additional Reports.--
       (1) In general.--At least 90 days before the date on which 
     the total strength of the Army, including the National Guard 
     and Reserves, is reduced below the strength provided in 
     subsection (e) of section 3062 of title 10, United States 
     Code (as amended by subsection (e) of this section), the 
     Secretary of the Army, in consultation with (where 
     applicable) the Director of the Army National Guard or Chief 
     of the Army Reserve, shall submit to the congressional 
     defense committees a report on the reduction.
       (2) Elements.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1) 
     shall include the following:
       (A) A list of each major combat unit of the Army that will 
     remain after the reduction, organized by division and 
     enumerated down to the brigade combat team-level or its 
     equivalent, including for each such brigade combat team--
       (i) the mission it is assigned to; and
       (ii) the assigned unit and military installation where it 
     is based.
       (B) A list of each brigade combat team proposed for 
     disestablishment, including for each such unit--
       (i) the mission it is assigned to; and
       (ii) the assigned unit and military installation where it 
     is based.
       (C) A list of each unit affected by a proposed 
     disestablishment listed under subparagraph (B) and a 
     description of how such unit is affected.
       (D) For each military installation and unit listed under 
     subparagraph (B)(ii), a description of changes, if any, to 
     the designed operational capability (DOC) statement of the 
     unit as a result of a proposed disestablishment.
       (E) A description of any anticipated changes in manpower 
     authorizations as a result of a proposed disestablishment 
     listed under subparagraph (B).

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I will return to the floor soon to lay 
out more fully what this amendment does. Fundamentally, it tries to 
protect our force structure, our personnel and, in particular, the core 
component of brigade combat teams as the Pentagon--the Defense 
Department--deals with curtailed resources.
  I am very concerned, as are so many of us, that as defense budgets 
are cut, personnel and core resources in terms of end strength, 
including brigade combat teams, will suffer cuts that go well beyond 
fat and into meat and bone. We need to limit that. We need to avoid 
that. This amendment would do that with regard to brigade combat teams.
  It does not increase spending. It retains as much flexibility as 
possible for the Department of Defense. I think it meets an important 
goal in a balanced and reasonable way. I look forward to continuing 
this discussion toward a vote in favor of this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, for the benefit of Members, and in 
agreement with Senator Reed, we will be having the Shaheen amendment, 
followed by side-by-side Markey and Cornyn amendments. And those votes, 
we are planning on, but haven't confirmed, will probably be at around 
1:45 p.m., and that would complete our activities. That is not totally 
agreed to, but that is the plan.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, also I believe we anticipate taking up by 
voice vote the Tillis amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. We will voice vote the Tillis amendment, and we will be 
looking, hopefully, at a manager's package, as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                           Amendment No. 1494

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I rise to discuss amendment No. 1494, 
which I believe would move our Nation one step closer toward finally 
securing equal protection under the law for veterans in the United 
States. I thank the other cosponsors of this amendment, Senators Leahy, 
Durbin, Brown, Hirono, Blumenthal, Baldwin, Schatz, Peters, Gillibrand, 
Markey, Whitehouse, Coons, Wyden, Franken, Murphy, Murray, and Boxer.
  This amendment would end the current prohibition on benefits for gay 
and lesbian veterans and their families who live in States that do not 
recognize same-sex marriage. My amendment is based on the Charlie 
Morgan Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act, which I was proud to 
reintroduce earlier this year.
  The bill is named for Charlie Morgan, a former soldier and chief 
warrant officer in the New Hampshire National Guard and the Kentucky 
National Guard. Charlie was a military veteran with a career spanning 
more than 30 years. I first met Charlie in 2011. She was on her way 
home from deployment in Kuwait, and she had just been diagnosed for a 
second time with breast cancer. Concerned for her wife Karen and their 
young daughter's well-being, Charlie became an outspoken critic of the 
Defense of Marriage Act, which at the time prohibited her spouse and 
child from receiving the benefits that she had earned during her 
service.
  Sadly, Charlie did not live to see the Supreme Court overturn the 
Defense of Marriage Act in 2013. However, because of her example, her 
leadership, and her courageous advocacy, our Nation took another 
historic step toward ensuring equal treatment and civil rights for all.
  Despite the Supreme Court's overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, 
there are still provisions remaining in the U.S. Code that deny equal 
treatment to LGBT families. One of those

[[Page 8681]]

provisions is in title 38, which deals with veterans benefits.
  Today, if you are a gay veteran living in a State such as New 
Hampshire that recognizes same-sex marriage, your family is entitled to 
all the benefits you have earned through your military service. 
However, a veteran with the exact same status, the same service record, 
the same injuries, the same family obligations, but living in a State 
that does not recognize same-sex marriage will receive less.
  The impact of this discrimination is very real. Monthly benefits are 
less, spouses and children are not eligible for medical care at the VA, 
and families are not eligible for the same death benefits.
  There are even reports that the VA has required gay veterans to pay 
back benefits because their State will not recognize their marriage. In 
one case, a young woman--a 50-percent disabled combat veteran--was 
initially approved for benefits for her wife and child but later told 
by the VA that because of where she lived and whom she loved, she was 
not only going to lose a portion of her benefits but the VA was also 
going to withhold her future payments until she paid the VA back. This 
is just disgraceful--to cut the benefits earned by a combat veteran and 
then also require that she pay back the VA, all because of whom she 
married and where she lives. Perhaps the most frustrating part of this 
story is knowing that if this woman moved across the border to another 
State, she would have no problems with the VA.
  My amendment would fix this issue for these men and women who have 
volunteered to serve in our Armed Forces. They have volunteered to put 
themselves in harm's way, to leave their families and their homes, and 
to travel around the world to protect America and our way of life. Yet 
they are being deprived of the very rights they have risked their lives 
to protect.
  So again, let's be clear what we are talking about. The Supreme Court 
has ruled it is unconstitutional to deny Federal benefits to legally 
married, same-sex couples and their children. Yet, due to unrelated 
provisions of the Federal Code, State legislatures have the ability to 
indirectly deny Federal benefits to certain disabled veterans and their 
families solely because they are in a same-sex marriage. It is unjust 
and, according to the Supreme Court, it is unconstitutional.
  Now, my amendment is not new to the Senate. Last Congress the 
Veterans' Affairs Committee approved it by a voice vote, and earlier 
this year, 57 Senators voted in favor of a budget resolution amendment 
on this issue. Now, when we vote--hopefully very soon on this 
amendment--Senators will have the opportunity to end an unjust and 
unconstitutional provision of law that discriminates against veterans.
  Many of us talk about the need to honor the service of our veterans 
and to make sure they have access to the care they deserve, and we 
should all do that. But if you believe that all veterans, regardless of 
their sexual orientation, deserve equal access to the benefits they 
have risked their lives for, regardless of where they live, then you 
will vote in favor of this amendment.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support passage of this amendment 
when it comes up for a vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to commend the Senator from New 
Hampshire. I think one of the best indications of the appropriate 
direction of this policy is that the Department of Defense extends 
benefits regardless of State law to all military personnel. Consistent 
with the Department of Defense, this should be done by the Department 
of Veterans Affairs.
  So I commend the Senator. I think it is the right thing to do and the 
consistent thing to do and the logical thing to do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I thank Senator Reed, the ranking 
member of the Armed Services Committee, who has a distinguished 
military career of his own, for his support of this effort and his 
understanding of how important this is to so many veterans who have 
served.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                Amendment No. 1645 to Amendment No. 1463

  Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up the following amendment: Markey No. 1645.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1645 to amendment No. 1463.

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

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress that exports of crude oil to 
   United States allies and partners should not be determined to be 
 consistent with the national interest if those exports would increase 
energy prices in the United States for American consumers or businesses 
     or increase the reliance of the United States on imported oil)

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

     SEC. 1085. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING EXPORTS OF CRUDE OIL.

       It is the sense of Congress that exports of crude oil to 
     allies and partners of the United States should not be 
     determined to be consistent with the national interest and 
     the purposes of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 
     U.S.C. 6201 et seq.) if those exports would increase energy 
     prices in the United States for American consumers or 
     businesses or increase the reliance of the United States on 
     imported oil.

  Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, what we are about to do is have a 
discussion about whether the United States of America should start 
exporting our oil--exporting our oil.
  The United States right now, along with China, is the largest 
importer of oil in the world. We are not exactly at but very near to 
the level of imports of oil in our country that we were back in 1975 
when we put a ban on the exportation of oil in our country.
  Why is that important? It is important for a lot of reasons. No. 1, 
if we begin to export our oil in the United States, a new Barclays 
report found that the U.S. consumer last year saved $11.4 billion at 
the pump because of the lowest U.S. crude prices in a long time, and we 
would potentially save upwards of $10 billion in prices for consumers 
at the pump in the United States of America.
  We understand the oil industry. Here is what happens. The world price 
is set. It is called the Brent price. The Brent price is the world 
price of oil. That price is traditionally higher, much higher than the 
price of crude oil in the United States that is produced in the United 
States. That is West Texas intermediate. That is a price set in 
Cushing, OK.
  If you are an oil company, you want to get our U.S. crude out on the 
world market because they will then be able to sell it for a much 
higher price. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with that is that 
the American consumers will not get that oil at the lower price, and we 
will still have to import oil into our country because we are still 
short by millions of barrels of oil per day.
  The consumer in America is the one who will be paying this tax on 
their price at the pump. That is the essence of what this whole 
strategy is about. It is to get the oil companies the highest price for 
the oil which is on the world market. But who is going to pay? Who is 
going to have their pockets tipped upside down at the pump and have 
money shaken out of them so they have to pay a higher price? It will be 
the consumers.
  If we want to give more money to the defense budget, let's just do 
it. Let's have a big debate about increasing the defense budget. Let's 
have that debate. But let's not have the American consumer at the pump 
be a special tax that is imposed in order to help our allies overseas. 
Ultimately, of course, there is a beautiful access there where the oil 
industry is saying: Yes, sir, we are willing to put our crude oil on 
ships and send it overseas.
  It is just a bad, bad economic policy for our country. We are already 
paying

[[Page 8682]]

a high price at home. This exportation of our oil would also defy what 
our own Department of Energy is saying. Our Department of Energy is 
saying that in 2020, our oil production in America is going to peak, 
and then we are going to begin to go down once again in our oil 
production.
  Who is saying this? Our Government. Who is saying this? The Energy 
Information Administration of the United States of America. What we are 
engaging in here is a premature attempt to export oil with the 
likelihood that by 2019 and 2020 our oil production is going to start 
to go down again.
  It also hurts our domestic oil refining industry. The Energy 
Information Administration has found that lifting this ban on the 
exportation of our own domestic crude could lead to a fundamental 
reduction in the amount of investment made by the American refining 
industry here on our own soil. Some $9 billion less would be invested 
because the oil would be sent overseas. The crude oil would get refined 
overseas. It would not be refined here in our own country with American 
workers and American companies doing it here on our own soil, helping 
our economy here.
  This decision, by the way, that Members are going to be asked to make 
today is opposed by the AFL-CIO, it is opposed by the steel workers, it 
is opposed by the League of Conservation Voters, by the Sierra Club, by 
Public Citizen, and by an entire group of American refiners.
  This is no radical coalition that has been put together. It is a 
broad base of interest in our own country that wants to make America 
stronger. How in the world can we be strong if we are exporting oil 
while we are still importing oil? We will have to import the same 
amount that we are now exporting under this amendment that is being 
made by the Senator from Texas, and we will wind up with, ultimately, 
the price being paid by the American consumer at the pump.
  From my perspective, this is about as desperate an attempt as the oil 
industry can have to get out from underneath the 1975 law. They have 
been looking for an opportunity. But, obviously, the instability in the 
Middle East should make us very cautious at this time. The oil fields 
of Saudi Arabia are now very vulnerable. They are right on the border. 
The Houthis being supported by Iran, right at the bottom of the Red 
Sea, makes that juncture very vulnerable to a cutoff of oil coming into 
the world economy. This Shiite-Sunni war is something that we have to 
be very conscious of because ISIS is targeting those areas in Syria, in 
Iraq, and in Yemen that have oil resources.
  We need a big debate in our country about oil and war in the Middle 
East. We are at a pivotal point here where the Ottoman Empire and all 
of the lines that were drawn 100 years ago are being erased and with 
that the protection of oil resources in the Middle East.
  We should not just have a debate on the Senate floor about cavalierly 
lifting the ban on the exportation of oil. We should have a debate 
about what this war in country after country and oil area after oil 
area means for our country.
  I would say to you that we should err in a way that is going to 
protect our own economy. That is what makes us strong. That is what 
makes it possible for us to project the power around the world. It is 
that we are the strongest economy in the world, and the indispensable 
life's blood of economic growth is low-energy cost for every single 
industry and every single consumer. It puts more money in their 
pockets.
  This decision that the amendment of the Senator from Texas asks us to 
make will send us in the wrong direction. This is a disaster for 
consumers in our country. It is a disaster for the refiners in our 
country, and it is a disaster for the national security of our country. 
We should keep our resources here at home for American families, 
American businesses, to enhance our national security using America and 
our economy as the basis for how we project power around the world. For 
every barrel of oil that we export, we are going to have to import 
another barrel of oil from some other place.
  We should have the debate here on the Senate floor about where that 
oil will be coming back into our country because we still need 3 
million, 4 million extra barrels of oil a day. That is a national 
security consideration that we have to deal with. Which country are we 
going to call up? Which country are we going to ask to send us their 
oil? What are the implications for our national security of having 
phone calls go to country after country--probably not just the oil 
companies but our government beginning new negotiations to get even 
more oil to come here as we export the oil that we should be keeping 
here.
  The Saudis have been our friends, historically. We have no guarantee 
that the Saudis are going to even be running that country. Let's be 
honest about it. Let's talk about that. Let's debate it. ISIS has taken 
over oil fields in Syria. ISIS has taken over areas of oil production 
in Iraq. Let's have a debate about that. That is what we should be 
debating. How is that oil now funding ISIS? How is that oil now being 
used by Iran, potentially, in Yemen and in other parts of the world to 
undermine American interests?
  In one part of the world, Yemen, we want to back the Sunnis against 
the Shiites. In Iran, we are backing moderate Sunnis against Shiites. 
In Iraq we are backing the Shiites against radical Sunnis, trying to 
get moderate Sunnis to help us. All of it, by the way, is with oil as--
if not the central issue, then one of--the central issues in each one 
of these countries. To have a resolution here today and to be saying 
that we should be exporting oil--no, ladies and gentlemen, that is not 
how we should be discussing this issue.
  How did we get into the Middle East? We got into the Middle East, 
yes, protecting Israel, but we got in because of our addiction to oil--
not my words, President Bush's words. We have to break our dependence 
upon imported oil. Increasing fuel economy standards is a big part of 
it. Having this fracking revolution continue to produce more oil here 
domestically is a big part of it. Investing in renewables and energy 
efficiency is a big part of it. But we are still at the earliest stages 
of this strategy. When we have completed it, when we know we are 
successful, then let's talk about the generosity that we are going to 
expect from American consumers at the pump to pay higher prices for 
gasoline.
  Again, this is an issue that the American people overwhelmingly want 
to see resolved in a way that keeps American oil in America. If we are 
going to continue to export young men and women from America over to 
the Middle East, then we should not be exporting our oil at the same 
time. That makes no sense--no sense. It is disrespectful to the 
sacrifice young men and women are making in the Middle East in order to 
protect our interests to start an economic policy of exporting imported 
oil while we still need to import it.
  This issue, to me, is central to our overall long-term national 
security and economic interests, and I urge an aye vote on the 
amendment.
  I ask for a rollcall on the amendment, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  At the moment there is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               ObamaCare

  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, this morning, Majority Leader 
McConnell spoke about the skyrocketing costs, the broken promises, and 
the repeated failures of the President's health care law. He pointed 
out specifically how so many Americans are facing double-digit premium 
increases because of ObamaCare. In his home State of Kentucky, some 
people face proposed increases as high as 25 percent.

[[Page 8683]]

He noted that some people in Indiana could be hit with a 46-percent 
jump in their premiums.
  So how did Democratic Leader Reid respond to the news of double-digit 
premium increases? He said people are extremely satisfied with health 
care. He said the people Majority Leader McConnell spoke about are 
having increases that are ``very, very minimal.'' I wish to repeat 
that. The Democratic leader, on the floor of the Senate today, called 
premium increases of 25 and 46 percent very, very minimal. What world 
is he living in? How on Earth can Senate Democrats believe Americans 
are satisfied with their health care when they are facing double-digit 
premium increases? How on Earth can the Senate Democratic leader 
believe these increases are very, very minimal? They are shocking.
  The Democrats have their head in the sand about the health care law. 
We can pick up Investor's Business Daily, Monday, June 1: ``ObamaCare 
Deductibles Soaring to $6,500 for Silver-Level Plan.''
  Pick up the Wall Street Journal, Friday, May 22: ``Health Insurers 
Seek Big Increases.''
  Investor's Business Daily today: ``ObamaCare Enrollment Mystery: 2 
Million Young Adults Missing.'' They are not signing up, and there are 
plenty of good reasons why. It is not because it is a good deal for 
them.
  No matter how bad it gets, no matter how unaffordable it is, 
President Obama and the Democrats in Congress absolutely refuse to face 
the reality. They refuse to help Americans who continue to be hurt by 
this law.
  I wish to speak a little bit about the reality of the law and why 
Republicans are committed to helping all Americans finally have access 
to affordable care.
  We all remember when President Obama promised that his health care 
law would cause insurance premiums to go down--down--by an average of 
$2,500 per year, per family. So where do we stand now? A couple of 
weeks ago was the deadline for insurance companies to say what they 
intended to charge people for health care next year. This is the first 
time companies have been able to set their prices based on a full year 
of information about how much ObamaCare actually costs. From what we 
have seen so far, the cost is enormous. A lot of Americans are going to 
be shocked by how much more their health insurance will be.
  These higher premiums are just the latest evidence that ObamaCare is 
an expensive failure. We have seen reports about the largest insurance 
company in New Mexico saying it wants to raise rates by almost 52 
percent next year. The biggest insurer in Tennessee wants to raise its 
rates 36 percent. In Maryland, the largest insurer is planning to 
increase premiums by more than 30 percent. Yet, we hear Senator Reid on 
the floor of the Senate this morning saying these things don't matter.
  People who are in the President's home State of Illinois right now 
are facing an average premium increase of 30 percent. It seems as 
though there is another headline every day about how expensive health 
care insurance is becoming.
  The Wall Street Journal Tuesday: ``Insurers Seek Big Premium 
Increases.''
  I know there are some supporters of the law who like to say lots of 
people have insurance under ObamaCare. How many of them are actually 
going to be paying these double-digit rate increases next year because 
of ObamaCare? That is what Americans want to know.
  On Monday, the Obama administration released information on rate 
hikes for people living in about 41 States. It turns out that 676 
different insurance plans--different ObamaCare insurance plans--offered 
for sale in these 41 States plan to raise their rates by double 
digits--by at least double digits. The average increase is 21 percent. 
About 6 million people getting their insurance from these plans will 
face double-digit rate increases next year. Do Democrats who voted for 
ObamaCare think a 21-percent rate increase is affordable? Do they think 
a double-digit premium increase will help these 6 million hard-working 
Americans?
  These numbers are so large, it is hard to even understand what they 
mean for a typical person. What does it mean that health insurance 
policies in Maryland might have an average rate increase of 30 percent? 
How does that impact someone's life, their quality of life?
  Let's say there is a 40-year-old nonsmoker living in Annapolis, MD. 
He buys a silver plan from CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield, which is the 
biggest insurer in Maryland and the most popular kind of plan. 
According to the Wall Street Journal study, those rates would go from 
about $2,900 for the year to nearly $3,700 next year. That is an $800-
a-year increase. The President promised it would go down $2,500, and 
now it has gone up $800. That is how expensive ObamaCare has become. It 
is far more costly than people thought it was going to be, than the 
insurers thought it was going to cost, and far more costly than the 
American people were told it was going to be.
  I have heard some Democrats who support this law say these are just 
the requested rates. They say we shouldn't worry because State 
insurance agencies won't allow these huge rate increases to take 
effect. Well, CareFirst, the company in Maryland that wants a 30-
percent rate increase next year, raised its rates 16 percent last year. 
Hard-working people across the country are going to have to pay these 
enormous premiums because the President mandates they buy it. And many 
of them still won't be able to actually use their insurance because the 
deductibles and the copays are so high. This year, the average 
deductible for an ObamaCare silver plan is almost $3,000 per person and 
more than $6,000 per family.
  One has to ask, why are costs going up so much so fast? That is what 
a radio station in Kansas City, MO, KCUR-FM, asked. They reported last 
week, on May 27, that premiums for some plans in Kansas are going to go 
up 38 percent. According to the radio station, the increases ``appear 
to be driven by requirements in the Affordable Care Act, also known as 
Obamacare.'' That is what they report.
  The Kansas State Insurance Department said it was because of things 
like all of the coverage mandates in the law. Families are now paying 
for coverage that is more than they need, more than they want, and more 
than they can afford. A spokesman for the State insurance agency in the 
State of Kansas told the radio station, ``These things cost money.''
  What do people think about these enormous increases in their 
premiums? Are people happy because of all the extra money they have to 
pay because of Obamacare?
  Let's look at Connecticut. In Connecticut, they have been writing to 
the State insurance department, and they are angry and frustrated about 
the Obamacare price hikes.
  One person wrote, ``I find it outrageous that the rates for 2016 are 
going to increase by 6.7 percent,'' which was the request in 
Connecticut. The person goes on:

       Where do you think that I am going to get that money? I do 
     not get a raise every year based on your ``every year'' rate 
     increases.

  So this is somebody who is having a hard time with a rate increase of 
only 6.7 percent. Imagine how tough it is going to be for families all 
around the country who will have to pay 20 or 30 or 40 percent more 
next year for their Obamacare-mandated insurance. Thousands of families 
across the country are facing these shocking rate increases, and it 
might be just the beginning.
  Sometime this month, the Supreme Court is expected to decide an 
important case called King v. Burwell. This case is about the subsidies 
some people get to pay Obamacare's alarmingly high costs. The health 
care law said that Washington could subsidize the premiums of people 
who buy insurance through its exchanges established by the States. 
President Obama knew that wouldn't be enough because he knew his law 
was going to make insurance premiums skyrocket, so he told his 
administration to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize insurance in the 
Federal exchange as well. Democrats in Congress

[[Page 8684]]

wrote the law to allow subsidies for one group, and then the President 
then decided to pay them out for another group. So if the Supreme Court 
decides that the President overstepped his authority, there are going 
to be a lot of people who could be facing paying the full cost of their 
Obamacare plans without the subsidy. They are going to see just how 
expensive this Obamacare insurance is and just how destructive the 
Democrats' health care law has been.
  Let's face it. In spite of what the minority leader says on the floor 
of the Senate, Obamacare has been a disaster. It is bad for patients. 
It is bad for providers. It has been terrible for the American 
taxpayers, hard-working Americans who work every day to try to put food 
on the table and pay their taxes.
  Republicans are offering better solutions, real solutions that will 
end these outrageous and expensive Obamacare side effects. That means 
giving Americans freedom, choice, and control over their health care 
decisions. Republicans understand that hard-working American families 
can't afford Obamacare any longer.
  Democrats need to admit that their health care law has been and 
continues to be an expensive failure. If they are ready to do that, 
then Republicans will work with them to help give people the care they 
need from a doctor they choose at lower cost.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I rise today to speak on my 
amendment No. 1578, the Military Justice Improvement Act, to ensure 
that survivors of military sexual assault have access to an unbiased 
and professionalized military justice system.
  Last year, despite earning the support of 55 Senators--a coalition 
spanning the entire ideological spectrum, including both the majority 
and minority leader--our bill to create an independent military justice 
system, free of the inherent bias and conflicts of interest within the 
chain of command, fell short of overcoming the 60-vote filibuster 
threshold. But, as we said then, we will not walk away. We will 
continue to fight to strengthen our military because that is our duty.
  It is our oversight role in Congress to act as if the brave survivors 
are our sons and daughters, our spouses who are being betrayed by the 
greatest military on Earth. We owe them at least that.
  Over the last few years, Congress has forced the military to make 
many incremental changes to address this crisis. After two decades of 
complete failure and lipservice to ``zero tolerance,'' the military now 
says essentially: Trust us. We have got this.
  They spin the data, hoping nobody will dig below the top line because 
when you do, the clear conclusion is that survivors still have little 
faith in the system and that the military has not actually made a dent 
in the problem. Even after much-lauded reforms, the estimate for 2014 
is 20,000 cases of sexual assault and unwanted sexual contact--the same 
level as 2010--an average of 52 a day. A much-touted reform made 
retaliation a crime. That made a lot of sense, but a sky-high 62-
percent retaliation rate remains unchanged from 2 years ago.
  The system remains plagued with distrust and does not provide the 
fair and just process the survivors deserve. Simply put, the military 
has not held up to the standards posed by General Dempsey 1 year ago 
when he said, ``We are on the clock if you will . . . the President 
said to us in December, you've got about a year to review this thing . 
. . and if we haven't been able to demonstrate we are making a 
difference, you know, then we deserve to be held to the scrutiny and 
standard.''
  So I am urging my colleagues to hold the military to that standard. 
Enough is enough with the spin, the excuses, and the promises, because 
throughout the last year, we have continued to see new evidence of how 
much further we actually have to go to solve this problem.
  We have a very simple choice. We can keep waiting, hoping that the 
reforms we put in place--that we actually forced the military to put in 
place--will somehow restore trust in the system, while an average of 52 
new lives are shattered every day, three-quarters of whom will never 
come forward because they see what happens around them and they don't 
trust the system and don't see how justice is possible because 
commanders hold all the cards, or we can do the right thing and act.
  We can accept a system where, according to the DOD themselves, three 
out of four servicewomen and nearly half of servicemen say sexual 
harassment is common or very common or we can do the right thing and 
act.
  We can accept a system where women who were sexually harassed were 
1,400 percent more likely to be sexually assaulted that same year or we 
can act.
  We can accept a climate where supervisors and unit leaders were 
responsible for sexual harassment and gender discrimination in nearly 
60 percent of all cases or we can act.
  My friends, I believe it is time that we provide our servicemembers 
with an unbiased justice system, one that is professionalized, where 
the decisionmaker is trained in military justice. It is time to finally 
listen to the survivors who have told us over and over again that this 
reform is required to instill long-lost confidence in the system.
  It is very much time to do the right thing and act because every time 
we look at this problem, it seems to get worse. My office just reviewed 
107 sexual assault case files from the largest base in each of the 
services. We requested these files, and that was for 1 year of sexual 
assaults. We requested the data to understand what actually happens 
once the reports are filed, how they are investigated, and how they 
move forward within the military justice system to see if there is any 
other challenges we have to address. It took the Pentagon a year to 
respond to my document request. These 107 files are just a snapshot of 
the thousands of estimated cases that occur annually.
  What we found, which was unexpected, was an alarming rate of assaults 
among two survivor groups who are not represented in the DOD survey. 
The DOD survey is all servicemembers. But what we found is that 
civilian women and military spouses are not counted in that survey, and 
of these 107 cases, in 53 percent of them, the survivor was either a 
military spouse or a civilian. These two categories of survivors are 
hidden in the shadows.
  According to the DOD themselves, the real scope of this problem, 
unfortunately, is much larger than the 20,000 that were estimated for 
last year alone. These obviously aren't just numbers; these are real 
lives being broken, and they deserve a fair shot at justice.
  It should disturb everyone in this Chamber that instead of hope for 
justice at these four military bases, nearly half of the survivors who 
initially filed a complaint--some of them going through the medical 
exam, going through testimony, going through evidence--nearly half who 
filed withdrew their complaint during the process before trial. What 
does that tell us? Is there a form of retaliation taking place? Is it 
just a lack of faith in the system? To have about half of these cases 
not move forward is very troubling.
  Even when a case did move forward, just over 20 percent of them went 
to trial, and only 10 percent of these cases resulted in sexual assault 
convictions with penalties of confinement and dishonorable discharge. 
Ten percent. Only 10 percent ended in conviction. The cases that did 
proceed to trial but failed to obtain a sexual assault conviction 
typically resulted in a more lenient penalty, such as reduction in rank 
or docked pay.
  There was a new report published by the Human Rights Watch. They 
issued a report which told us that servicemembers who reported a sexual 
assault were 12 times more likely to suffer retaliation than to see 
their offender get convicted of the sexual offense. Let me repeat that. 
A survivor who reports a sexual assault is 12 times more likely to see 
retaliation than to see justice. How can anyone say this is a system 
our survivors can actually have faith in?

[[Page 8685]]

  Despite the DOD's reported 62 percent retaliation rate--and this is 
so troubling--there was not evidence of a single serious disciplinary 
action against anyone for retaliation. Not one. There was not one 
disciplinary action for 62 percent of survivors who were retaliated 
against. That borders on the impossible. But the reality is, without 
independent review, we are actually relying on commanders to charge 
themselves with retaliation. It doesn't make any sense.
  According to the DOD's own SAPRO report, retaliation remains at 62 
percent for women. Over one-third experienced administrative action, 
and 40 percent faced other forms of professional retaliation. That 
means your job changes in some meaningful way.
  DOD admits they have made zero progress since 2012.
  The carefully crafted and widely bipartisan Military Justice 
Improvement Act is designed to reduce the systemic failure that 
survivors of military sexual assault describe, in deciding whether to 
report the crimes committed against them, due to the bias and inherent 
conflicts of interest posed by the military chain of command's current 
sole decisionmaking power over whether a case moves forward. This 
reform actually protects both the victim and the accused. We do not 
want to see an innocent person convicted any more than we want to see a 
guilty person go free.
  Due process, professionalism, training, equal opportunity to justice 
is how we restore a broken system. It is time to move the sole 
decisionmaking power over whether serious crimes akin to a felony go to 
trial from the chain of command into the hands of nonbiased, 
professionally trained military prosecutors, where it belongs. And we 
do this while leaving military crime in the chain of command. So we 
completely carve-out anything that is military-related, such as missing 
in action or not honoring a command. In fact, the decision whether to 
prosecute the vast majority of crimes, including 37 serious crimes 
uniquely military in nature, plus all punishable crimes that have less 
than a year of confinement as a penalty, remain in the chain of 
command.
  The brave men and women we sent to war to keep us safe deserve 
nothing less than a justice system that is actually equal to their 
sacrifice. We owe that at least to them.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1521

  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise in support of the NDAA that is on 
the floor now but also in strong support of an amendment that has been 
offered by Senator Reed of Rhode Island to the NDAA. Actually, I have a 
deja vu feeling in the speech, because the speech is largely about what 
I gave as my maiden speech in February of 2013; that is, the BCA budget 
caps and sequester.
  To begin, before I focus on the amendment from my colleague from 
Rhode Island, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, I do 
think there is a lot of good policy in the NDAA. We worked on it 
together. That committee process is a productive one. I think we always 
find a great degree of bipartisanship as we are trying to tackle the 
programmatic description of our Nation's military budget and support. 
There is much good policy, acquisition reform, and other key reforms 
that are part of this budget. There are some items that I feel very 
strongly about dealing with shipbuilding and ship repair.
  I think it is great that we are having the debate on the floor. We 
have had NDAAs passed, but we have not had a lot of floor time on them 
in 2013 and 2014. So the fact that we have are having this debate about 
the critical nature of our Nation's defense and the authorizing bill on 
the floor is very positive.
  There are some aspects of the NDAA that I do not like. There are some 
items that I wish were in there but that are not. That is part of the 
process. I think we could all say that, but I am glad we are having the 
debate on the floor. However, the item that is in the NDAA that I have 
the greatest concern about is the use of what I consider a flagrant 
budget gimmick to sneak by defense spending caps that were imposed by 
the 2011 Budget Control Act.
  I think the gimmick is a serious one and a challenging one. The 
gimmick is dishonest. It is bad for the Nation's defense. It is also 
bad for America's nondefense priorities.
  The good news is that the budget can be fixed. My colleague from 
Rhode Island, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, has a 
proposal to fix it. The proposal was offered in committee and rejected, 
and it has been offered again on the floor. I want to describe it and 
explain why I strongly support it.
  First, there is the gimmick itself. Just for the public on this, in 
August of 2011, before either I or the Presiding officer were in the 
body, Congress passed the Budget Control Act that imposed a set of 
draconian budget caps on defense and nondefense spending as a 
punishment, in case Congress did not find a grand budget deal. So the 
wisdom of this body at the time was that we will sort of punish 
ourselves unless we can find a budget deal. I describe that 
colloquially as if we don't do something smart, we will do something 
stupid.
  Well, Congress did not do something smart. There wasn't the grand 
budget deal that many hoped there would be. So on March 1, 2013, budget 
caps went into effect that put a significant crimp in both the defense 
and nondefense items in the Nation's budget. The first speech I gave on 
the floor was in February 2013. After my first State recess week, I 
traveled around and I heard my constituents talk about how bad these 
caps would be, especially for the Nation's defense. I stood up and just 
shared what my constituents had described to me. But, nevertheless, the 
caps went into effect and we agreed, through the early 2020s, to limit 
in a very significant and tough way both defense and nondefense 
spending.
  So what is the gimmick that is in this NDAA that is on the floor 
today?
  A decision was made that the world has changed since August 2011. 
ISIL has grown up and is gobbling up acres and square miles of 
territory. We are battling against Ebola, as we were earlier in the 
year. North Korea is cyber-attacking major American corporations. 
Vladimir Putin has moved into Ukraine and is threatening other nations.
  There are a lot of challenges. So it was the wisdom first of the 
President, in submitting the fiscal year 2016 budget, and then of the 
Armed Services Committee that living under the sequester defense caps 
was a bad idea. It would be a bad idea for the Nation. But instead of 
just saying: OK, the caps are a bad idea; let's adjust the cap--which 
we can do with 60 votes in this body and the concurrence of the House--
a decision was made: Let's not adjust the cap, let's end-run the cap.
  So we want to exceed the cap. We want to exceed it by $38 billion in 
fiscal year 2016. But rather than adjust the cap, let's do this: Let's 
just take $38 billion that the Nation needs to be safe, and we will put 
it in what is called the OCO account, Overseas Contingency Operations. 
It is something that is not subject to the cap. It is supposed to be 
used for core warfighting activity. But the $38 billion does not 
represent core warfighting.
  We spent $2 billion in the last year, for example, in the war on 
ISIL. We are not going to spend $38 billion in the next year. No, 
instead, we are going to fund all kinds of nonemergency, 
noncontingency, nonwarfighting expenditures that would require an 
adjustment of the cap, and we are just going to put them into the OCO 
account, kind of a slush fund. By doing that, we end-run the law of 
Congress, the Budget Control Act.
  I asserted, and I strongly believe, that this is dishonest, it is bad 
for defense, and it is bad for the nondefense accounts. It is 
dishonest. It is dishonest because, if we need this money

[[Page 8686]]

for defense, we should fix the budget control caps. That is what we 
should do. We should not call expenditures for daily operations that 
are not core warfighting part of the OCO account. That violates the way 
the OCO account has been treated.
  Once we go down that path, we are going to see everything going into 
the OCO account, and we will really end-run. So we are not being honest 
with ourselves, but especially, since we all know what the game is, we 
are not being honest with the public.
  Second, putting this money, the $38 billion, in the OCO account is 
bad for defense. Defense needs the ability to plan. If we put the money 
in the OCO account, is it going to be here next year? Is it not going 
to be here? There is sort of a wink and a nod that it will probably be 
here. We ought to be acknowledging that these funds are needed in the 
base defense budget so that our DOD personnel can plan that it will be 
there in the future, because that is probably our intent. It is bad for 
defense to put this in this OCO account.
  Third, it is bad for the nondefense accounts. If we are going to say 
that the BCA caps are bad, we should adjust them. Instead of using an 
end run, let's adjust them. Let's adjust them not just for the defense 
accounts but also for the nondefense accounts, because, as the 
Presiding Officer and my colleagues here know, the nondefense accounts 
are critical to the Nation's defense.
  The FBI is nondefense. It is critical to the Nation's defense. 
Homeland Security is critical to the Nation's defense. In the 
Department of Energy, much of the research we do is for the reactors on 
nuclear carriers and nuclear subs. Those get cut by budget cups. They 
are critical to defense. We ought to be lifting the caps on the 
nondefense accounts, as well.
  So the gimmick that is used is a gimmick. It is dishonest. It hurts 
defense. It hurts nondefense accounts that are important to the Nation. 
Good news--there is a solution. We are doing this because we do not 
like the budget caps. That is why we are doing this. That is why we are 
using the OCO gimmick. If we don't like the budget caps, we should fix 
them. We should find the 2015 version of the Murray-Ryan budget deal 
that was reached in December of 2013, where we agreed to adjust the 
budget caps. That deal accepted part of sequester. It absorbed 
sequester cuts. But it also found targeted ways to provide relief, both 
to defense and nondefense accounts. That is what we should be doing. We 
should be showing the same leadership that was shown in 2013.
  I rise to say that the amendment that my colleague from Rhode Island, 
our ranking member, proposes does exactly that. It does exactly that. 
It takes the $38 billion that is in our budget, which I believe should 
be spent on defense, and it says that this money should be spent on 
defense, but it should be spent the right way, as part of a base 
budget, not as part of OCO.
  It puts a fence around those dollars and says that the money is 
there, and it is there for defense because the Nation needs it. But the 
fence will keep the money from being utilized until we fix the BCA caps 
on both the defense and nondefense accounts.
  If we do fix the BCA caps, that money will be available. Because of 
language included by the chair of the committee in the markup, fixing 
the budget caps would move the money from the OCO account into the 
defense base budget where it should be. I think we all know what the 
right answer is here, which is for this $38 billion to be used to 
protect the Nation but to be part of the base budget, not the OCO 
account. To get there we need to fix the BCA caps across the board for 
defense and nondefense. The Reed amendment would accomplish that. That 
is the reason that I am on the floor today, to praise the debate on the 
NDAA but to say this is the right way to keep our Nation safe.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 1:45 
p.m. today, the Senate vote in relation to the following amendments: 
Shaheen No. 1494, spouse definition; Tillis No. 1506, C-130 aircraft; 
further, that there be no second-degree amendments in order to any of 
those amendments prior to the votes, and that the Shaheen amendment be 
subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold for adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Paul of Kentucky, I 
ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment in order to 
call up amendment No. 1543.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise with my friend from Arizona, 
Senator Flake, to speak about an amendment that he and I and Senator 
Blumenthal from Connecticut have as part of this pending legislation.
  Along with sports fans across America, I was appalled to learn last 
month that many of the ceremonies honoring members of our armed 
services at NFL games are not actually being conducted out of a sense 
of patriotism but for profit in the form of millions of dollars in 
taxpayers' money going from the Department of Defense to wealthy NFL 
franchises.
  In fact, NFL teams have received nearly $7 million in taxpayer 
dollars over the last 3 years from contracts with the Army National 
Guard, which include public tributes to American soldiers, sailors, 
airmen, and marines. Our amendment would put an end to this shameful 
practice and ask the NFL to return those profits to charities 
supporting our troops, veterans, and their families.
  All Americans can agree that sports unite us, especially football. 
For generations, football has brought together people from every walk 
of life--from the first organized American football game between 
Rutgers and Princeton in 1869 to Super Bowl XLIX played in the great 
State of Arizona this February, which attracted more than 100 million 
television viewers, the most watched TV program in history.
  Football has been a uniting force for our Nation. Every weekend, from 
peewee to high school, college, and the NFL, for good seasons and bad, 
in common cause and bitter rivalry, millions of passionate fans have 
bonded together. For many Americans, football is deeply patriotic and 
woven into the very fabric of our country's unique history and 
heritage. For several weeks every fall, this patriotic spirit grows 
when the NFL takes time to honor the service and sacrifice of the brave 
young Americans serving in the U.S. Armed Forces.
  Teams wear special camouflage uniforms, hold special game-day 
programming under the theme ``Salute to Service.'' We have all been 
heartened by these patriotic displays, from the giant oversized flags 
and color guard pregame performances to half time tributes to our 
hometown heroes. Every fan, whether united by team or divided by 
rivalry, comes together to thank those who have served and sacrificed 
on our Nation's behalf.
  That is why I and so many other Americans were shocked and 
disappointed to learn that several NFL teams were not sponsoring these 
activities out of the goodness of their own hearts but were doing so to 
make an extra buck, taking money from American taxpayers in exchange 
for honoring American troops. That means many of the color guard 
performances and troop recognition ceremonies were actually funded with 
American tax dollars and pocketed by wealthy NFL teams.
  For example, the Army National Guard spent $675,000 under contracts 
with the New England Patriots--hardly a deprived franchise--that 
included a program called ``True Patriot,'' in which the team honored 
Guard soldiers at half-time shows during home games.
  Other contracts funded color guard performances, flag ceremonies, and 
appearance fees to players for honoring

[[Page 8687]]

local high school coaches and visiting students.
  According to the information my office has received from the Army 
National Guard, the NFL received nearly $7 million in taxpayer dollars 
over the last 3 years from Guard contracts for activities including: 
pregame color guard ceremonies, pregame reenlistment ceremonies, 
pregame onfield American flag rollouts, ingame flag runners, half-time 
soldier recognition ceremonies, Guard-sponsored high school Player of 
the Week and Coach of the Week awards, and Guard-sponsored player 
appearances at local high schools.
  The following teams had contracts in the past 3 years, according to 
the Army National Guard: Atlanta Falcons, $579,500; Baltimore Ravens, 
$350,000; Buffalo Bills, $550,000; Chicago Bears, $443,000; Cincinnati 
Bengals, $117,000; Dallas Cowboys, $262,500; Denver Broncos, $460,000; 
Detroit Lions, $193,000; Green Bay Packers, $300,000; Indianapolis 
Colts, $400,000; Miami Dolphins, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and Jacksonville 
Jaguars, $160,000; Minnesota Vikings, $410,000; New Orleans Saints, 
$307,000; New York Jets, $212,500; Oakland Raiders, $275,000; 
Pittsburgh Steelers, $217,000; St. Louis Rams and Kansas City Chiefs, 
$60,000; San Diego Chargers, $453,500; San Francisco 49ers, $125,000; 
and Seattle Seahawks, $393,500.
  What makes these expenditures all the more troubling is at the same 
time the Guard was spending millions on pro-sports advertising, it was 
also running out of money for critical training for our troops. In 
fact, at the end of fiscal year 2014, the National Guard Bureau and 
Army National Guard announced they were facing a $101 million shortfall 
in the account used to pay National Guardsmen and could face a delay in 
critical training and drills because they couldn't afford to pay 
soldiers. Despite the fact that the Guard was facing serious threats to 
meeting its primary mission and paying its current soldiers, it was 
spending millions of taxpayer dollars on speakership and advertising 
deals with professional sports leagues, such as the NFL.
  This is obviously unacceptable. Providing for our common defense is 
the highest duty of the Federal Government. At a time of crippling 
budget cuts under sequestration, the Defense Department cannot afford 
to waste its limited resources for the benefit of sports leagues that 
rake in billions of dollars a year. Each of the four service Chiefs 
have warned before the Senate Armed Services Committee this year that 
sequestration is damaging our military readiness and putting American 
lives in danger. We must conserve every precious defense dollar we have 
at our disposal--which the NDAA does through important reforms to 
acquisition, military retirement, personnel, headquarters and 
management, and which our amendment would support by ending taxpayer-
funded soldier tributes at professional sporting events.
  In addition to ending this shameful practice, this amendment calls 
upon professional sports leagues like the NFL to donate--to donate--
these ill-gotten profits to charities supporting American troops, 
veterans, and their families.
  The NFL raked in revenues totaling some $9.5 billion. The absolute 
least they can do to begin to make up for this terrible misjudgment is 
to return those taxpayer dollars to charities supporting our troops, 
veterans, and military families.
  I thank my fellow Senator from the State of Arizona, Jeff Flake, who 
has done terrific oversight of this issue. He was the first to expose 
it and similar cases of wasteful and excessive government spending.
  I also commend Senator Blumenthal for his longstanding commitment to 
our troops and veterans, as well as the other Members of this body who 
have supported our amendment.
  Again, I thank Jeff Flake, who was first to blow the whistle on this 
egregious use of American tax dollars, and also Senator Blumenthal.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, I also thank the senior Senator from 
Arizona for helping me bring this amendment forward. I am proud to 
cosponsor it with him and Senator Blumenthal.
  I wish to make a couple of points. We have asked the Pentagon for a 
full accounting, not just NFL teams but other teams that have received 
such money. We want to make sure this practice stops.
  Part of the reason it needs to stop is these teams that were 
mentioned before by the senior Senator from Arizona and other teams 
that have received this kind of money do a lot for the military out of 
the goodness of their heart. They do a lot for the military and for 
veterans who return, and we shouldn't discount that and don't want to 
discount that.
  The problem is, when some teams are accepting money to do what has 
been termed ``paid-for patriotism,'' then it cheapens all the other 
good work that has been done by these sports teams and others. So it is 
important we stop this practice and make sure that when fans are there 
and they see this outpouring of support for the military, they know it 
is genuine--because there is a great deal of patriotism by those who 
attend these games. We want to make sure people recognize it is done 
for the right reason, and that is the reason for bringing this 
amendment forward.
  I, again, thank the senior Senator from Arizona for his work on this 
amendment and other efforts to fight wasteful spending, making sure 
that the funding that goes to our military and that we appropriate for 
the Department of Defense--authorize for the Department of Defense--is 
used for military purposes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I withdraw my request with respect to 
amendment No. 1543. It is my understanding we will call up this 
amendment after the votes this afternoon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's request is withdrawn.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.


                           Amendment No. 1506

  Mr. REED. Madam President, I wish to comment briefly on the amendment 
proposed by my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Tillis, with 
respect to the stationing of the C-130 aircraft at Pope Army Airfield 
in North Carolina.
  The amendment states that these aircraft shall be positioned in Pope 
Army Airfield. They are C-130 Avionics Modernization Program aircraft, 
the AMP program. Basically, they are C-130H models that were upgraded. 
In addition, the Air Force has C-130J models, the newest model. In the 
give-and-take of the budget deliberations over the last few years, this 
AMP modernization program is essentially curtailed dramatically because 
the choice was buying new J models or fixing the old H models.
  So, in effect, what we have is a group of C-130 modified aircraft 
that are at Little Rock Air Force Base. They are only being minimally 
maintained because these AMP-modified aircraft are not standard. They 
are different from the traditional hotel model, and they are not as new 
or as modern as the J model, and they are not being supported with AMP-
trained crews or AMP-unique logistics. Logistically, they are at Little 
Rock Air Force Base and sort of caught up in this funding and 
programmatic dilemma.
  They are not fully deployable because of these conditions. They are 
just sort of additive to the force structure of the C-130J. There are 
only three that are modified, with five more to be modified. That would 
be at $8 million per aircraft for about an additional multimillion 
dollar pricetag. Therefore, they are not as functional as a unit since 
there are only three aircraft and not a full complement. To operate 
these aircraft would require additional resources.
  The thrust of the gentleman's amendment is that these aircraft be 
transferred to Pope Air Force Base in North Carolina, but they would 
not really be effectively utilized by the forces there and would not, 
in my view at least, contribute to the training and the real-time 
operations of the 82nd Airborne Division, the XVIII Airborne

[[Page 8688]]

Corps, and the special operations forces that are there.
  So rather than doing that, what we did in the underlying legislation 
at section 136 is to go through and quite clearly have a careful review 
of the adequacy of aircraft to support operations of the paratroop 
forces at Fort Bragg so that the Air Force is fully supportive of this 
very important issue. The 82nd is America's most ready Army force, and 
of course we know special forces operators are all across the globe 
constantly.
  So my comments are that this amendment would not essentially help 
what I think is the underlying goal, which is to ensure that our 
airborne forces have the platforms necessary. It would, in fact, 
restrict the flexibility of the Air Force in terms of using C-130 
aircraft. It would practically have the effect of simply taking 
aircraft that because of their modification and their 
nonstandardization are being parked at Little Rock and moving them 
without effect, I think, on the operational capacity and capabilities 
of our airborne forces.
  So as a result, I believe our best approach is to stay with the 
language in the underlying bill, section 136, which--to the credit of 
Senator Tillis, he was very adamant about including--would have a 
careful review of the operational capacity of the Air Force to support 
the airborne operations.
  It would include the ability of commanders from the corps level, 
XVIII Airborne Corps, 82nd, Special Operations Command, to comment 
effectively on whether the Air Force was doing this. After such a 
review and analysis, we could make better decisions about the 
allocation of the Air Force aircraft.
  Again, ironically--and again it strikes me that simply moving these 
aircraft--which are sort of one-of-a-kind aircraft--to Pope would not 
help the airborne operations of our military forces. They would simply 
involve additional cost, and they would not be part of the ability of 
our Air Force and our mobility command to support a wide range of 
missions. They would complicate, rather than simplify, our ability to 
respond.
  So for that, when this vote, which is scheduled later today, comes up 
for a vote, I will oppose it, and I will do so because I believe--in 
the underlying legislation, through the work of Senator Tillis 
particularly--we have an appropriate response to the issue of 
flexibility, mobility, and operational capacity of our airborne forces 
at Fort Bragg.
  With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Grieving for the Biden Family

  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, when a child predeceases the parent, it is 
a grievous occasion, and we have been grieving for the President of the 
Senate, the Vice President of the United States, for what he has been 
going through--his whole family.
  It is my belief Joe Biden has known for some period of time the 
progression of his son, Beau's, cancer and, as a result, he has 
continued to carry on his public duties while at the same time carrying 
this huge burden.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the speech Joe Biden made to the Yale graduating class about 2 weeks 
ago on Class Day.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   Remarks by the Vice President at Yale University Class Day, Yale 
                   University, New Haven, Connecticut

       THE VICE PRESIDENT: Hello, Yale! (Applause.) Great to see 
     you all. (Applause.) Thank you very, very much.
       Jeremy and Kiki, the entire Class of 2015, congratulations 
     and thank you for inviting me to be part of this special day. 
     You're talented. You've worked hard, and you've earned this 
     day.
       Mr. President, faculty, staff, it's an honor to be here 
     with all of you.
       My wife teaches full-time. I want you to know that--at a 
     community college, and has attended 8,640 commencements and/
     or the similar versions of Class Day, and I know they can 
     hardly wait for the speaker to finish. (Laughter.) But I'll 
     do my best as quickly as I can.
       To the parents, grandparents, siblings, family members, the 
     Class of 2015--congratulations. I know how proud you must be. 
     But, the Class of 2015, before I speak to you--please stand 
     and applaud the ones who loved you no matter what you're 
     wearing on your head and who really made this day happen. 
     (Laughter and applause.) I promise you all this is a bigger 
     day for them than it is for you. (Laughter.)
       When President Obama asked me to be his Vice President, I 
     said I only had two conditions: One, I wouldn't wear any 
     funny hats, even on Class Day. (Laughter.) And two, I 
     wouldn't change my brand. (Applause.)
       Now, look, I realize no one ever doubts I mean what I say, 
     the problem occasionally is I say all that I mean. 
     (Laughter.) I have a bad reputation for being straight. 
     Sometimes an inappropriate times. (Laughter.) So here it 
     goes. Let's get a couple things straight right off the bat: 
     Corvettes are better than Porsches; they're quicker and they 
     corner as well. (Laughter and applause.) And sorry, guys, a 
     cappella is not better than rock and roll. (Laughter and 
     applause.) And your pundits are better than Washington 
     pundits, although I've noticed neither has any shame at all. 
     (Laughter and applause.) And all roads lead to Toads? Give me 
     a break. (Laughter and applause.) You ever tried it on Monday 
     night? (Laughter.) Look, it's tough to end a great men's 
     basketball and football season. One touchdown away from 
     beating Harvard this year for the first time since 2006--so 
     close to something you've wanted for eight years. I can only 
     imagine how you feel. (Laughter.) I can only imagine. 
     (Applause.) So close. So close.
       But I got to be honest with you, when the invitation came, 
     I was flattered, but it caused a little bit of a problem in 
     my extended family. It forced me to face some hard truths. My 
     son, Beau, the attorney general of Delaware, my daughter, 
     Ashley Biden, runs a nonprofit for criminal justice in the 
     state, they both went to Penn. My two nieces graduated from 
     Harvard, one an all-American. All of them think my being here 
     was a very bad idea. (Laughter.)
       On the other hand, my other son, Hunter, who heads the 
     World Food Program USA, graduated from Yale Law School. 
     (Applause.) Now, he thought it's a great idea. But then 
     again, law graduates always think all of their ideas are 
     great ideas. (Laughter.)
       By the way, I've had a lot of law graduates from Yale work 
     for me. That's not too far from the truth. But anyway, look, 
     the truth of the matter is that I have a lot of staff that 
     are Yale graduates, several are with me today. They thought 
     it was a great idea that I speak here.
       As a matter of fact, my former national security advisor, 
     Jake Sullivan, who is teaching here at Yale Law School, 
     trained in international relations at Yale College, edited 
     the Yale Daily News, and graduated from Harvard--excuse me, 
     Freudian slip--Yale Law School. (Laughter.) You're lucky to 
     have him. He's a brilliant and decent and honorable man. And 
     I miss him. And we miss him as my national security advisor.
       But he's not the only one. My deputy national security 
     advisor, Jeff Prescott, started and ran the China Law Center 
     at Yale Law School. My Middle East policy advisor and foreign 
     policy speechwriter, Dan Benaim, who is with me, took Daily 
     Themes--got a B. (Laughter.) Now you know why I go off script 
     so much. (Laughter and applause.)
       Look, at a Gridiron Dinner not long ago, the President 
     said, I--the President--``I am learning to speak without a 
     teleprompter, Joe is learning to speak with one.'' 
     (Laughter.) But if you looked at my speechwriters, you know 
     why.
       And the granddaughter of one of my dearest friends in 
     life--a former Holocaust survivor, a former foreign policy 
     advisor, a former Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign 
     Affairs, Congressman Tom Lantos--is graduating today. 
     Mercina, congratulations, kiddo. (Applause.) Where are you? 
     You are the sixth--she's the sixth sibling in her immediate 
     family to graduate from Yale. Six out of 11, that's not a bad 
     batting average. (Laughter.) I believe it's a modern day 
     record for the number of kids who went to Yale from a single 
     family.
       And, Mercina, I know that your mom, Little Annette is here. 
     I don't know where you are, Annette. But Annette was part of 
     the first class of freshman women admitted to Yale 
     University. (Applause.)
       And her grandmother, Annette, is also a Holocaust survivor, 
     an amazing woman; and both I'm sure wherever they are, 
     beaming today. And I know one more thing, Mercina, your 
     father and grandfather are looking down, cheering you on.
       I'm so happy to be here on your day and all of your day. 
     It's good to know there's one Yalie who is happy I'm being 
     here--be here, at least one. (Laughter.) On ``Overheard at 
     Yale,'' on the Facebook page, one student reported another 
     student saying: I had a dream that I was Vice President and 
     was with the President, and we did the disco funk dance to 
     convince the Congress to restart the government. (Laughter.)

[[Page 8689]]

       Another student commented, Y'all know Biden would be 
     hilarious, get funky. (Laughter.)
       Well, my granddaughter, Finnegan Biden, whose dad went 
     here, is with me today. When she saw that on the speech, I 
     was on the plane, Air Force Two coming up, she said, Pop, it 
     would take a lot more than you and the President doing the 
     disco funk dance. The Tea Party doesn't even know what it is. 
     (Laughter.)
       Look, I don't know about that. But I'm just glad there's 
     someone--just someone--who dreams of being Vice President. 
     (Laughter and applause.) Just somebody. I never had that 
     dream. (Laughter.) For the press out there, that's a joke.
       Actually, being Vice President to Barack Obama has been 
     truly a great honor. We both enjoy getting out of the White 
     House to talk to folks in the real America--the kind who know 
     what it means to struggle, to work hard, to shop at Kiko 
     Milano. (Laughter and applause.) Great choice. (Laughter.)
       I just hope to hell the same people responsible for Kiko's 
     aren't in charge of naming the two new residential colleges. 
     (Laughter and applause.)
       Now, look, folks, I spent a lot of time thinking about what 
     I should say to you today, but the more I thought about it, I 
     thought that any Class Day speech is likely to be redundant. 
     You already heard from Jessie J at Spring Fling. (Laughter.) 
     So what in the hell could I possibly say. (Laughter.)
       Look, I'm deeply honored that Jeremy and Kiki selected me. 
     I don't know how the hell you trusted them to do that. 
     (Laughter.) I hope you agree with their choice. Actually I 
     hope by the end of this speech, they agree with their choice. 
     (Laughter.)
       In their flattering invitation letter, they asked me to 
     bring along a sense of humor, speak about my commitment to 
     public service and family, talk about resiliency, compassion, 
     and leadership in a changing world. Petty tall order. 
     (Laughter.) I probably already flunked the first part of the 
     test.
       But with the rest let me say upfront, and I mean this 
     sincerely, there's nothing particularly unique about me. With 
     regard to resilience and compassion, there are countless 
     thousands of people, maybe some in the audience, who've 
     suffered through personal losses similar to mine or much 
     worse with much less support to help them get through it and 
     much less reason to want to get through it.
       It's not that all that difficult, folks, to be 
     compassionate when you've been the beneficiary of compassion 
     in your lowest moments not only from your family, but from 
     your friends and total strangers. Because when you know how 
     much it meant to you, you know how much it mattered. It's not 
     hard to be compassionate.
       I was raised by a tough, compassionate Irish lady named 
     Catherine Eugenia Finnegan Biden. And she taught all of her 
     children that, but for the grace of God, there go you--but 
     for the grace of God, there go you.
       And a father who lived his motto that, family was the 
     beginning, the middle, and the end. And like many of you and 
     your parents, I was fortunate. I learned early on what I 
     wanted to do, what fulfilled me the most, what made me 
     happy--my family, my faith, and being engaged in the public 
     affairs that gripped my generation and being inspired by a 
     young President named Kennedy--civil rights, the environment, 
     trying to end an incredibly useless and divisive war, 
     Vietnam.
       The truth is, though, that neither I, nor anyone else, can 
     tell you what will make you happy, help you find success.
       You each have different comfort levels. Everyone has 
     different goals and aspirations. But one thing I've observed, 
     one thing I know, an expression my dad would use often, is 
     real. He used to say, it's a lucky man or woman gets up in 
     the morning--and I mean this sincerely. It was one of his 
     expressions. It's a lucky man or woman gets up in the 
     morning, puts both feet on the floor, knows what they're 
     about to do, and thinks it still matters.
       I've been lucky. And my wish for all of you is that not 
     only tomorrow, but 20 and 40 and 50 years from now, you've 
     found that sweet spot, that thing that allows you to get up 
     in the morning, put both feet on the floor, go out and pursue 
     what you love, and think it still matters.
       Some of you will go to Silicon Valley and make great 
     contributions to empower individuals and societies and maybe 
     even design a life-changing app, like how to unsubscribe to 
     Obama for America email list--(laughter)--the biggest ``pan-
     list'' of all times.
       Some of you will go to Wall Street and big Wall Street law 
     firms, government and activism, Peace Corps, Teach for 
     America. You'll become doctors, researchers, journalists, 
     artists, actors, musicians. Two of you--one of whom was one 
     of my former interns in the White House, Sam Cohen, and 
     Andrew Heymann--will be commissioned in the United States 
     Navy. Congratulations, gentlemen. We're proud of you. 
     (Applause.)
       But all of you have one thing in common you will all seek 
     to find that sweet spot that satisfies your ambition and 
     success and happiness.
       I've met an awful lot of people in my career. And I've 
     noticed one thing, those who are the most successful and the 
     happiest--whether they're working on Wall Street or Main 
     Street, as a doctor or nurse, or as a lawyer, or a social 
     worker, I've made certain basic observation about the ones 
     who from my observation wherever they were in the world were 
     able to find that sweet spot between success and happiness. 
     Those who balance life and career, who find purpose and 
     fulfillment, and where ambition leads them.
       There's no silver bullet, no single formula, no reductive 
     list. But they all seem to understand that happiness and 
     success result from an accumulation of thousands of little 
     things built on character, all of which have certain common 
     features in my observation.
       First, the most successful and happiest people I've known 
     understand that a good life at its core is about being 
     personal. It's about being engaged. It's about being there 
     for a friend or a colleague when they're injured or in an 
     accident, remembering the birthdays, congratulating them on 
     their marriage, celebrating the birth of their child. It's 
     about being available to them when they're going through 
     personal loss. It's about loving someone more than yourself, 
     as one of your speakers have already mentioned. It all seems 
     to get down to being personal.
       That's the stuff that fosters relationships. It's the only 
     way to breed trust in everything you do in your life.
       Let me give you an example. After only four months in the 
     United States Senate, as a 30-year-old kid, I was walking 
     through the Senate floor to go to a meeting with Majority 
     Leader Mike Mansfield. And I witnessed another newly elected 
     senator, the extremely conservative Jesse Helms, excoriating 
     Ted Kennedy and Bob Dole for promoting the precursor of the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act. But I had to see the Leader, 
     so I kept walking.
       When I walked into Mansfield's office, I must have looked 
     as angry as I was. He was in his late '70s, lived to be 100. 
     And he looked at me, he said, what's bothering you, Joe?
       I said, that guy, Helms, he has no social redeeming value. 
     He doesn't care--I really mean it--I was angry. He doesn't 
     care about people in need. He has a disregard for the 
     disabled.
       Majority Leader Mansfield then proceeded to tell me that 
     three years earlier, Jesse and Dot Helms, sitting in their 
     living room in early December before Christmas, reading an ad 
     in the Raleigh Observer, the picture of a young man, 14-
     years-old with braces on his legs up to both hips, saying, 
     all I want is someone to love me and adopt me. He looked at 
     me and he said, and they adopted him, Joe.
       I felt like a fool. He then went on to say, Joe, it's 
     always appropriate to question another man's judgment, but 
     never appropriate to question his motives because you simply 
     don't know his motives.
       It happened early in my career fortunately. From that 
     moment on, I tried to look past the caricatures of my 
     colleagues and try to see the whole person. Never once have I 
     questioned another man's or woman's motive. And something 
     started to change. If you notice, every time there's a crisis 
     in the Congress the last eight years, I get sent to the Hill 
     to deal with it. It's because every one of those men and 
     women up there--whether they like me or not--know that I 
     don't judge them for what I think they're thinking.
       Because when you question a man's motive, when you say 
     they're acting out of greed, they're in the pocket of an 
     interest group, et cetera, it's awful hard to reach 
     consensus. It's awful hard having to reach across the table 
     and shake hands. No matter how bitterly you disagree, though, 
     it is always possible if you question judgment and not 
     motive.
       Senator Helms and I continued to have profound political 
     differences, but early on we both became the most powerful 
     members of the Senate running the Foreign Relations 
     Committee, as Chairmen and Ranking Members. But something 
     happened, the mutual defensiveness began to dissipate. And as 
     a result, we began to be able to work together in the 
     interests of the country. And as Chairman and Ranking Member, 
     we passed some of the most significant legislation passed in 
     the last 40 years.
       All of which he opposed--from paying tens of millions of 
     dollars in arrearages to an institution, he despised, the 
     United Nations--he was part of the so-called ``black 
     helicopter'' crowd; to passing the chemical weapons treaty, 
     constantly referring to, ``we've never lost a war, and we've 
     never won a treaty,'' which he vehemently opposed. But we 
     were able to do these things not because he changed his mind, 
     but because in this new relationship to maintain it is 
     required to play fair, to be straight. The cheap shots ended. 
     And the chicanery to keep from having to being able to vote 
     ended--even though he knew I had the votes.
       After that, we went on as he began to look at the other 
     side of things and do some great things together that he 
     supported like PEPFAR--which by the way, George W. Bush 
     deserves an overwhelming amount of credit for, by the way, 
     which provided treatment and prevention HIV/AIDS in Africa 
     and around the world, literally saving millions of lives.
       So one piece of advice is try to look beyond the caricature 
     of the person with whom you

[[Page 8690]]

     have to work. Resist the temptation to ascribe motive, 
     because you really don't know--and it gets in the way of 
     being able to reach a consensus on things that matter to you 
     and to many other people.
       Resist the temptation of your generation to let ``network'' 
     become a verb that saps the personal away, that blinds you to 
     the person right in front of you, blinds you to their hopes, 
     their fears, and their burdens.
       Build real relationships--even with people with whom you 
     vehemently disagree. You'll not only be happier. You will be 
     more successful.
       The second thing I've noticed is that although you know no 
     one is better than you, every other persons is equal to you 
     and deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.
       I've worked with eight Presidents, hundreds of Senators. 
     I've met every major world leader literally in the last 40 
     years. And I've had scores of talented people work for me. 
     And here's what I've observed: Regardless of their academic 
     or social backgrounds, those who had the most success and who 
     were most respected and therefore able to get the most done 
     were the ones who never confused academic credentials and 
     societal sophistication with gravitas and judgment.
       Don't forget about what doesn't come from this prestigious 
     diploma--the heart to know what's meaningful and what's 
     ephemeral; and the head to know the difference between 
     knowledge and judgment.
       But even if you get these things right, I've observed that 
     most people who are successful and happy remembered a third 
     thing: Reality has a way of intruding.
       I got elected in a very improbable year. Richard Nixon won 
     my state overwhelmingly. George McGovern was at the top of 
     the ticket. I got elected as the second-youngest man in the 
     history of the United States to be elected, the stuff that 
     provides and fuels raw ambition. And if you're not careful, 
     it fuels a sense of inevitability that seeps in. But be 
     careful. Things can change in a heartbeat. I know. And so do 
     many of your parents.
       Six weeks after my election, my whole world was altered 
     forever. While I was in Washington hiring staff, I got a 
     phone call. My wife and three children were Christmas 
     shopping, a tractor trailer broadsided them and killed my 
     wife and killed my daughter. And they weren't sure that my 
     sons would live.
       Many people have gone through things like that. But because 
     I had the incredible good fortune of an extended family, 
     grounded in love and loyalty, imbued with a sense of 
     obligation imparted to each of us, I not only got help. But 
     by focusing on my sons, I found my redemption.
       I can remember my mother--a sweet lady--looking at me, 
     after we left the hospital, and saying, Joey, out of 
     everything terrible that happens to you, something good will 
     come if you look hard enough for it. She was right.
       The incredible bond I have with my children is the gift I'm 
     not sure I would have had, had I not been through what I went 
     through. Who knows whether I would have been able to 
     appreciate at that moment in my life, the heady moment in my 
     life, what my first obligation was.
       So I began to commute--never intending to stay in 
     Washington. And that's the God's truth. I was supposed to be 
     sworn in with everyone else that year in '73, but I wouldn't 
     go down. So Mansfield thought I'd change my mind and not 
     come, and he sent up the secretary of the Senate to swear me 
     in, in the hospital room with my children.
       And I began to commute thinking I was only going to stay a 
     little while--four hours a day, every day--from Washington to 
     Wilmington, which I've done for over 37 years. I did it 
     because I wanted to be able to kiss them goodnight and kiss 
     them in the morning the next day. No, ``Ozzie and Harriet'' 
     breakfast or great familial thing, just climb in bed with 
     them. Because I came to realize that a child can hold an 
     important thought, something they want to say to their mom 
     and dad, maybe for 12 or 24 hours, and then it's gone. And 
     when it's gone, it's gone. And it all adds up.
       But looking back on it, the truth be told, the real reason 
     I went home every night was that I needed my children more 
     than they needed me. Some at the time wrote and suggested 
     that Biden can't be a serious national figure. If he was, 
     he'd stay in Washington more, attend to more important 
     events. It's obvious he's not serious. He goes home after the 
     last vote.
       But I realized I didn't miss a thing. Ambition is really 
     important. You need it. And I certainly have never lacked in 
     having ambition. But ambition without perspective can be a 
     killer. I know a lot of you already understand this. Some of 
     you really had to struggle to get here. And some of you have 
     had to struggle to stay here. And some of your families made 
     enormous sacrifices for this great privilege. And many of you 
     faced your own crises, some unimaginable.
       But the truth is all of you will go through something like 
     this. You'll wrestle with these kinds of choices every day. 
     But I'm here to tell you, you can find the balance between 
     ambition and happiness, what will make you really feel 
     fulfilled. And along the way, it helps a great deal if you 
     can resist the temptation to rationalize.
       My chief of staff for over 25 years, one of the finest men 
     I've ever known, even though he graduated from Penn, and 
     subsequently became a senator from the state of Delaware, 
     Senator Ted Kaufman, every new hire, that we'd hire, the last 
     thing he'd tell them was, and remember never underestimate 
     the ability of the human mind to rationalize. Never 
     underestimate the ability of the human mind to rationalize--
     her birthday really doesn't matter that much to her, and this 
     business trip is just a great opportunity; this won't be his 
     last game, and besides, I'd have to take the redeye to get 
     back. We can always take this family vacation another time. 
     There's plenty of time.
       For your generation, there's an incredible amount of 
     pressure on all of you to succeed, particularly now that you 
     have accomplished so much. Your whole generation faces this 
     pressure. I see it in my grandchildren who are honors 
     students at other Ivy universities right now. You race to do 
     what others think is right in high school. You raced through 
     the bloodsport of college admissions. You raced through Yale 
     for the next big thing. And all along, some of you compare 
     yourself to the success of your peers on Facebook, Instagram, 
     Linked-In, Twitter.
       Today, some of you may have found that you slipped into the 
     self-referential bubble that validates certain choices. And 
     the bubble expands once you leave this campus, the pressures 
     and anxiousness, as well--take this job, make that much 
     money, live in this place, hang out with people like you, 
     take no real risks and have no real impact, while getting 
     paid for the false sense of both.
       But resist that temptation to rationalize what others view 
     is the right choice for you--instead of what you feel in your 
     gut is the right choice--that's your North Star. Trust it. 
     Follow it. You're an incredible group of young women and men. 
     And that's not hyperbole. You're an incredible group.
       Let me conclude with this. I'm not going to moralize about 
     to whom much is given, much is expected, because most of you 
     have made of yourself much more than what you've been given. 
     But now you are in a privileged position. You're part of an 
     exceptional generation and doors will open to you that will 
     not open to others. My Yale Law School grad son graduated 
     very well from Yale Law School. My other son out of loyalty 
     to his deceased mother decided to go to Syracuse Law School 
     from Penn. They're a year and a day apart in their age. The 
     one who graduated from Yale had doors open to him, the lowest 
     salary offered back in the early `90s was $50,000 more than a 
     federal judge made. My other son, it was a struggle--equally 
     as bright, went on to be elected one of the youngest attorney 
     generals in the history of the state of Delaware, the most 
     popular public official in my state. Big headline after the 
     2012 election, ``Biden Most Popular Man in Delaware--Beau.'' 
     (Laughter.)
       And as your parents will understand, my dad's definition of 
     success is when you look at your son and daughter and realize 
     they turned out better than you, and they did. But you'll 
     have opportunities. Make the most of them and follow your 
     heart. You have the intellectual horsepower to make things 
     better in the world around you.
       You're also part of the most tolerant generation in 
     history. I got roundly criticized because I could not remain 
     quiet anymore about gay marriage. The one thing I was certain 
     of is all of your generation was way beyond that point. 
     (Applause.)
       Here's something else I observed--intellectual horsepower 
     and tolerance alone does not make a generation great: unless 
     you can break out of the bubble of your own making--
     technologically, geographically, racially, and 
     socioeconomically--to truly connect with the world around 
     you. Because it matters.
       No matter what your material success or personal 
     circumstance, it matters. You can't breathe fresh air or 
     protect your children from a changing climate no matter what 
     you make. If your sister is the victim of domestic violence, 
     you are violated. If your brother can't marry the man he 
     loves, you are lessened. And if your best friend has to worry 
     about being racially profiled, you live in a circumstance not 
     worthy of us. (Applause.) It matters.
       So be successful. I sincerely hope some of you become 
     millionaires and billionaires. I mean that. But engage the 
     world around you because you will be more successful and 
     happier. And you can absolutely succeed in life without 
     sacrificing your ideals or your commitments to others and 
     family. I'm confident that you can do that, and I'm confident 
     that this generation will do it more than any other.
       Look to your left, as they say, and look to your right. And 
     remember how foolish the people next to you look--
     (laughter)--in those ridiculous hats. (Laughter.) That's what 
     I want you to remember. I mean this. Because it means you've 
     learned something from a great tradition.
       It means you're willing to look foolish, you're willing to 
     run the risk of looking foolish in the service of what 
     matters to you. And if you remember that, because some of the 
     things your heart will tell you to do, will make you among 
     your peers look foolish, or not smart, or not sophisticated. 
     But we'll all be better for people of your consequence to do 
     it.

[[Page 8691]]

       That's what I want you to most remember. Not who spoke at 
     the day you all assembled on this mall. You're a remarkable 
     class. I sure don't remember who the hell was my commencement 
     speaker. (Laughter.) I know this is not officially 
     commencement. But ask your parents when you leave here, who 
     spoke at your commencement? It's a commencement speaker 
     aversion of a commencement speaker's fate to be forgotten. 
     The question is only how quickly. But you're the best in your 
     generation. And that is not hyperbole. And you're part of a 
     remarkable generation.
       And, you--you're on the cusp of some of the most 
     astonishing breakthroughs in the history of mankind--
     scientific, technological, socially--that's going to change 
     the way you live and the whole world works. But it will be up 
     to you in this changing world to translate those 
     unprecedented capabilities into a greater measure of 
     happiness and meaning--not just for yourself, but for the 
     world around you.
       And I feel more confident for my children and grandchildren 
     knowing that the men and women who graduate here today, here 
     and across the country, will be in their midst. That's the 
     honest truth. That's the God's truth. That's my word as a 
     Biden.
       Congratulations, Class of 2015. And may God bless you and 
     may God protect our troops. Thank you.

  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, it is noteworthy that the Vice President 
discussed very frankly the tragedy he has had in his life, all while 
knowing of this impending tragedy that was unfolding with his son, 
Beau. The speech was vintage Biden, with a lot of humor and Irish 
tales, but the essence of the speech came down to this, as he was 
talking to the graduates:

       Build real relationships--even with people with whom you 
     vehemently disagree. You'll not only be happier. You will be 
     more successful.

  And he continued:

       The second thing I've noticed is that although you know no 
     one is better than you, every other person is equal to you 
     and deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.

  That is the essence of how in a democracy we have to get along. It is 
known as the Golden Rule. Joe Biden talked about the Golden Rule 
without saying it was the Golden Rule--treat others as you want to be 
treated. Put into old English: Do unto others as you would have them do 
unto you.
  The Vice President talks in his speech about his time as a young 
Senator, when he heard Senator Jesse Helms talking about an issue that 
Senator Biden was opposed to. He felt it was violative of his basic 
concept in the treatment of other people. In this case, I think it was 
a question of disability. As he walked in to see the majority leader--
probably in that same office, in this case, Mike Mansfield--Senator 
Mansfield, the leader, noticed that Joe was visibly upset and he said: 
What is wrong? And Joe told him about this encounter with Senator 
Helms.
  Senator Mansfield then went on to say to Senator Biden: Don't ever 
judge until you really know the person, because Senator Helms and his 
wife had run into a situation where they found a severely disabled 
child and, as a result, they adopted that child.
  As a result, Senator Biden and Senator Helms became the best of 
friends. Even though their politics were different, when they served as 
the leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee--sometimes Helms 
as chairman and sometimes Biden as chairman--they could disagree on the 
issues, but they could get a lot done because they could work together. 
That is because they built a relationship.
  How different is that today, where each of us are racing out of here 
on Thursday afternoons and evenings to go back to our States and we 
hardly ever have time for each other, to understand the core of us as 
humans and what makes us, drives us as we are. If we knew that about 
each other, maybe we would find more common ground.
  What I have found is that every one of these Senators is an 
extraordinary person, extremely accomplished, and well motivated. They 
try, we all try to do the right thing, but then we let the politics and 
the ideology get in the way and it drives us apart. As a result, is it 
any wonder that we have a dysfunctional Senate that has difficulty 
getting along, particularly when you consider the arcane rules of the 
Senate, which were designed to slow down the process.
  When you don't have the relationship that can be built, when the two 
leaders can't get along, when the Senate cannot be run by unanimous 
consent, is there any wonder that it is dysfunctional? Yet, we have the 
capacity, just as Senator Biden and Senator Helms did, to overcome 
significant differences and get things done.
  At this time of grieving for the Biden family, as I read his Yale 
speech, I was reminded that there is a lot about what was expressed 
there in a grieving father who could not show his grief because it was 
still very private. There is a lot of wisdom there. That is why I 
entered it into the Record.
  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. KING. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Export-Import Bank

  Mr. KING. Madam President, I rise today to discuss two important 
issues--first, the Export-Import Bank.
  There is a lot about this place that puzzles me, but one of the 
things that this year has puzzled me the most is the movement to 
somehow defund or end the Export-Import Bank. I just don't get it. This 
is an agency of the Federal Government that has been extraordinarily 
effective. It creates jobs in the United States. It supports jobs. It 
supports American businesses. It supports small American businesses. It 
returns money to the Treasury. It fills a market niche that the private 
sector has been unwilling or unable to fill. This isn't competition 
with the private sector. This isn't the government doing something the 
private sector should do. This is the government filling a niche that 
has been identified for over 80 years. And it makes a difference.
  I have visited several small companies in Maine--I think there may be 
eight or so--that benefit directly from this program, which supports 2 
percent of the financing of U.S. exports.
  We are engaged in intense global competition for the export of goods 
and services, and to unilaterally disarm by taking away one of the 
tools our businesses use just doesn't make any sense. I don't 
understand what the impetus is for this move to undermine this very 
valuable program that is important to our companies.
  I toured a little company in Maine that resells computer and 
networking equipment all over the world, particularly to third-world 
countries that need this equipment desperately for various needs but 
particularly for coping with emergencies. It is a small business in 
Maine, has 35 employees, and is owned by a woman, Connie Justice. I 
visited with her, and she told me this story. I don't like to read, but 
I think this quote is so powerful from a real live business owner in 
Maine as to how important this program is.

       Ex-Im's Working Capital Loan Guarantee program helped us 
     expand our export sales during a period of rapid growth, when 
     private banks were unwilling to lend to us without a 
     guarantee.

  This is important to understand, that one of the most important 
programs the Export-Import Bank sponsors is a guarantee of receivables 
from foreign countries, which American banks--quite logically in many 
cases because they don't have the history, they can't collect--are very 
reluctant to factor or to finance.
  She said:

       After 2 years of solid exports, our financial position 
     strengthened so that the Ex-Im guarantee was no longer 
     needed. Private banks now meet all our credit needs. Our 
     expansion and increased sales would have been impossible 
     without Ex-Im's involvement. We continue to use Ex-Im Bank to 
     insure our receivables to Ex-Im approved customers in 
     developing countries. We pay reasonable premiums for this 
     insurance.

  This program makes money for the Federal government. This isn't a 
handout. This isn't corporate welfare. They are paying insurance 
premiums, which, over the past 20 years or so, have returned $7 billion 
to the U.S. Treasury. This makes money. She pays her premiums, and that 
is a positive for U.S. taxpayers.


[[Page 8692]]

       Being able to offer open payment terms for U.S.-made goods 
     opens previously inaccessible markets for us. Our major 
     manufacturers--including HP, Dell and Lenovo--have committed 
     to making more systems domestically to comply with Ex-Im's 
     ``Made in USA'' requirement for eligibility. This has a huge 
     multiplier effect on US employment. . . . Since 2004, 
     Planson's annual export sales have grown from $5 million to 
     $35 million. Our staff has grown from 5 to 35, and our 
     payroll has increased to almost $2 million. We use local 
     suppliers for a broad range of goods and services.

  She goes on to conclude:

       We achieve all this entirely through export sales. The U.S. 
     Export-Import Bank is a key partner in our success.

  Why would we want to let this very valuable program expire for some 
theoretical reason that, frankly, I just find inexplicable? It makes 
money for the American taxpayers. It is projected to continue to make 
money. But my passion here is about its support for small businesses in 
Maine that otherwise could not make these sales into the international 
market.
  As I mentioned, allowing the Export-Import Bank charter to expire is 
a kind of unilateral disarmament in an era of intense global 
competition. It makes no sense. Sixty other countries have similar 
kinds of programs, and if we take ours away, what we are doing is 
handcuffing our businesses while the rest of the world is moving 
forward with their programs to support exports.
  I used to start speeches in Maine by saying, simply, ``Five 
percent.'' People would look at me and say: What is he talking about, 5 
percent? Well, 5 percent is the percentage of the world's population 
that lives in North America. That means that if our businesses are 
going to ultimately be successful, we have to sell into the rest of the 
world. We have to be able to export, and the Export-Import Bank is a 
very valuable tool in order to facilitate the export of goods from the 
United States.
  There is bipartisan support. I believe the votes are there in the 
House. Senator McConnell has committed to a vote here in the Senate. I 
commend Senator Cantwell and Senator Graham for their work on behalf of 
this.
  I hope we can bring this matter to a vote promptly and avoid the 
deadline of June 30. I do not know why we cannot do things around here 
before the night before. Let's get this done and move on to more 
important topics. We should not even be having this debate. This ought 
to be automatic, as, indeed, it has effectively been for some 80 years.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this program. We 
should not be playing games with this important agency at a time of 
such intense global competition.
  Madam President, I also wish to talk about the national defense 
authorization bill, which is also coming to the floor today and is on 
the floor today.
  Sixty-five years ago this week a freshman Senator from Maine rose on 
this floor, in this place, and made one of the most important speeches 
in American history. It certainly was one of the most important 
speeches of the 20th century. It was June 1, 1950. That freshman 
Senator was Margaret Chase Smith of Maine. I got to know Margaret Chase 
Smith after she left the Senate, in the 1980s and 1990s in Maine, 
before we lost her in 1995.
  She told me about that speech. The speech was about the dangers to 
the country and, particularly, to this institution of the practices of 
Joseph McCarthy, of the smear campaigns, of the innuendo, of the 
threats. Her speech took enormous courage. She told me two stories 
about the speech that I think are interesting that I want to note 
before I go on to the implications of that speech for what we are 
considering today.
  One was that, as she had the speech in her hand and got on the little 
trolley to come from the Russell Building over here--at that time the 
Russell Building was the only Senate office building--who should be 
sitting in the trolley in the seat next to her but Joe McCarthy. 
Senator Smith sat down and McCarthy turned to her and said: What are 
you up to today, Margaret?
  She told me that she responded: I am about to make a speech, Joe, and 
you are not going to like it.
  She went on to the Senate floor. She had written that speech with her 
close aide Bill Lewis at her kitchen table in Skowhegan, ME, over 
Memorial Day weekend of 1950. She had the speech in her hand, and Bill 
Lewis was in the press gallery right up here. But she told him not to 
hand out a copy of the speech until she was well into giving it on the 
Senate floor because she was afraid that she would lose her nerve and 
not deliver the speech.
  That speech took enormous courage. It took enormous courage because 
she was telling her colleagues an uncomfortable truth--an uncomfortable 
truth. I believe that today it is also important that we face 
uncomfortable truths.
  I am a strong supporter of the National Defense Authorization Act 
that is on the floor. I am a strong supporter of the need and the 
importance and how crucial that bill is to the defense and the security 
of this country. The most solid responsibility we have in this place is 
set forth in the preamble to the Constitution itself: to ``provide for 
the common defense'' and ``insure domestic Tranquility.'' That is what 
governments are established to do. That is the basic fundamental 
responsibility--to ``provide for the common defense'' and ``insure 
domestic Tranquility.''
  That is national security. That is what this bill that is on the 
floor today is all about. I worked in subcommittee on it. I have been 
to numerous, repeated hearings, as the Presiding Officer has, all 
through the winter and early spring, where we learned about the 
strategic challenges facing this country. I commend the chair of the 
committee for putting this in a strategic context. We talked about big 
issues with people such as Henry Kissinger and Brzezinski and Madeleine 
Albright before we started talking about the specifics that are in this 
bill. And then we had lengthy subcommittee meetings and subcommittee 
markups.
  For me, one of the most satisfying parts of my legislative experience 
here has been the markup of this bill, where we met as a committee, 
where we argued and debated and voted and had a lot of amendments and 
tried to deal with it for 2 solid days and came to a conclusion, where, 
as I recall, the vote out of the committee was something like 22 to 4. 
It was a very powerful vote.
  I am in total support of this piece of legislation. However, my 
problem with the legislation is that it attempts to avoid the impact of 
the sequester through the use of the overseas contingency account 
money, which is not paid for.
  We have had hearings. Every hearing we have had this year has been 
talking about the danger of the sequester to national security. Indeed, 
I have been working with a number of my colleagues to try to find a 
solution for the sequester, but the solution for the sequester is not 
simply to borrow the money from our grandchildren. What bothers me 
about this legislation is that it is part of a pattern. When the chips 
are down around here, we borrow the money from our grandchildren. If 5-
year-olds could vote and knew what we were doing to them, we would all 
be dead ducks because we are passing the bill on to them. I think we 
should fully fund the Department of Defense and the request at the 
level that is in this bill. I just do not think we should borrow the 
money to do it.
  Make no mistake, that is what we are doing. We are saying it is very 
important, these are important expenditures, and it is critical for 
national defense that we make these expenditures but not critical 
enough to pay for them. That is the pattern.
  Earlier this year we passed the so-called tax extenders. They ought 
to be called tax-cut extenders because that is what they are. Everybody 
said they were important to economic development and they were 
important for the country and important for certainty for businesses. 
All that was true, but it was not enough to pay for them. We borrowed 
the money.
  Last year we passed a major rewrite of the Veterans' Administration 
program, where everybody talked about how important this was, how 
important the Veterans Affairs Department

[[Page 8693]]

was to our veterans, how much we owed our veterans, and how we had to 
take care of this. But then we turned around and borrowed the money 
from our grandchildren in order to fund it. We did not fund it.
  Recently, just in the last month or so, we fixed the so-called doc 
fix, which has been plaguing this place for a dozen years. But we did 
not really fix it. We fixed it as far as the docs are concerned, but we 
fixed it by borrowing the money. We did not pay for it.
  Many of my colleagues talk a lot around here about the deficit and 
the danger to the country. I think they are right. I think the deficit 
is a serious danger to this country. But it seems that the deficit is 
only a problem when we think it is a problem, and then the next day, it 
is not a problem anymore because we are going to borrow $38 billion 
more to put into this bill.
  I think we need to stand up and pay for things. I am no angel. I 
voted for all those things that I listed. But I think it is time to 
start saying: Wait a minute; we cannot do this. By the way, by fixing 
the sequester in the Department of Defense, of course, we are not 
fixing it anywhere else in the Federal Government. Some people say: 
Well, that is OK because defense is important, and we are not so 
worried about these other programs. Well, I am sorry, but some of those 
other programs are little items such as the FBI. There has never been a 
time in the history of this country when the FBI was more important.
  We are facing serious, dangerous imminent threats. To not fund the 
FBI or the Border Patrol or the TSA and to have the sequester affect 
those agencies and kid ourselves that we are dealing with our national 
security responsibilities is just not responsible. It is just not 
right. And to borrow the money to fix some of these things is not 
responsible or fair to our grandchildren.
  We are saying: We are just going to fix defense with this funny-money 
deal, a gimmick wrapped up in a trick, but we are not going to fix 
anything else. I talked about the FBI, the TSA, Border Patrol, and 
national security issues, but what about NIH and what about scientific 
research that can save lives? And we are having the sequester and 
saying: It is OK; we can do that. What about education? What about, 
yes, Head Start, which gives young people a chance to make a serious 
contribution to this country?
  I think the OCO trick that is in this bill is wrong on two counts. It 
is wrong on three counts, actually. No. 1, it is not paid for. No. 2 it 
is not really what the Defense Department needs. They need base budget 
authority so they can plan, so they can look to the future, and so they 
can make decisions on an ongoing basis that are necessary to commit to 
programs, plans, and projects that will defend this country. The short-
term OCO solution does not do that. That is No. 2.
  No. 3, by ignoring the needs of the rest of the Federal Government, 
by ignoring the needs of other parts of the national security 
apparatus, we are not serving the public we were sent here to look 
after.
  I support this bill, but I think we really ought to be thinking about 
alternative ways to fund the needs we have identified. It is too easy 
to say this is an important national priority but not important enough 
to pay for it. We are continually--even today, after all of the talk 
about deficits and budget control and everything else--finding ways to 
shift the burden to our kids and to our grandchildren. I do not think 
that is right.
  Senator Reed of Rhode Island has an amendment to this bill that I 
think is an important one. All it simply says is that we are not going 
to spend that OCO money in defense until we solve the problem more 
generally throughout the rest of the Federal Government.
  I realize it is not the responsibility of the Defense Department or 
of the Armed Services Committee to solve the overall budget problem 
within the Defense bill. But I think we have a responsibility to look 
at the larger problem, and we can contribute to its solution by saying 
to our colleagues throughout this body and in the House that there has 
to be a comprehensive solution before we say we are going to fix only 
defense and we are only going to fix defense with borrowed money.
  There are three ways to solve this budget problem--three ways. One is 
by cuts, and there have already been substantial cuts. From the 
projected budgets back in 2010, there is something like three-quarters 
of a trillion dollars that has already been cut from defense and other 
areas of the Federal budget. We have to continue to look at that, and 
we have to look at all aspects of the Federal budget.
  The second way is revenues. Nobody is supposed to talk about revenues 
around here, but the reality is that we are not paying our bills. To 
pat ourselves on the back for tax cuts when in reality we are passing 
the expenses on to our children is just not honest.
  When we pass tax cuts here in a deficit situation and borrow the 
money to fill the hole, we are not cutting taxes. We are shifting the 
tax to our children. I do not think that is honest. I do not think that 
is responsible. I do not think that is what we were sent here to do.
  The third way, of course, to solve this budget problem is by economic 
growth. Some people say that the only way to grow the economy is to cut 
taxes. I have seen no economic study that says that works. Maybe it 
works if you are reducing taxes, as they did in 1960, from a 90-percent 
top marginal rate to now about 35 percent. Ok, I think that is 
significant. But to reduce that marginal rate by two or three points 
and say that it will stimulate a huge amount of economic activity--
there is no economic justification for that.
  The two single biggest economic development projects in the recent 
history of the United States were the GI bill after World War II and 
the interstate highway system. Both of them were investments, both of 
them cost money, and, by the way, our predecessors paid for them. They 
didn't pass the bill on to us. They paid for them.
  So, yes, we need to control taxes. Yes, we need to think about 
strategic tax reductions in ways and areas that will actually help 
stimulate the economy. I don't understand how having some guy who is 
managing money in New York pay half the tax rate that his secretary 
makes is a stimulus to the economy. Yet that is what we are doing.
  We have to look at this problem in a comprehensive way. We have to 
look at health care costs, we have to look at the effects of 
demographics on Federal expenditures over the next 20 to 30 years, and 
we have to look at investments that will help our economy grow.
  The Presiding Officer and I work hard on this bill. I think it is an 
important bill for the future of this country. I think it is an 
important bill to protect the national security and to provide for the 
common defense, but I think we need to do it in an honest and open way 
and not try to fill a short-term budget gap with money our children and 
our grandchildren are going to have to repay. I believe we can do this. 
I believe we can face this responsibility because that is why we are 
here.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, someone already asked unanimous consent 
that U.S. Army MAJ Justin Gorkowski, who is a fellow in my Senate 
office, be granted floor privileges for this debate.
  I just wanted to explain how pleased and lucky we have been to have 
the major with us to help with these issues. He is a graduate of West 
Point. He currently serves as an information operations officer. He 
served as an adviser to the Iraq Army during the surge in 2006 and 2007 
and returned from Afghanistan in January of last year, where he had 
been responsible for psychological operations, electronic warfare and 
military deception for Kandahar Province. He has been a great addition 
to our office during this debate, and in my view this debate is the 
most important debate we have.
  The No. 1 priority for the Federal Government is to defend the 
country.

[[Page 8694]]

We can spend all the time we want talking about all the other 
priorities and all the things we should be doing and whether there is 
some sudden mystical balance between all of those priorities and 
defending the country, but in most of our States, and certainly in the 
State of Missouri, the one thing you can get the least argument on as 
to what the Federal Government should do that we can't do for ourselves 
is defend the country. That is why for 54 years straight the Senate has 
passed a defense authorizing bill every year. There are very few things 
that get authorized every year, very few things that get debated every 
year, very few things that get looked at every year, but our national 
defense is one of those, and it is one of those for a reason.
  We hear all kinds of reasons not to move forward with this bill, and 
then you hear: But I am for the bill. Well, that is because people 
understand that this is one of the things the Federal Government is 
supposed to do and in my view the top thing we can't in any way do for 
ourselves. Local government can't do this, State governments can't do 
this, individually we cannot do this, and that is why this debate is 
always so important and why the Armed Services Committee voted this out 
22 to 4 after all kinds of discussions, such as, well, maybe the 
minority would not vote for this for the reasons we just heard. But at 
the end of the day, the vote was 22 to 4 out of the committee.
  Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed have done a good job of 
bringing this bill to the floor with bipartisan support and looking for 
ways to reform defense so we really focus our defense where the 
defenders are rather than where the defenders are not.
  This bill is focused on eliminating wasteful spending. It focuses on 
finding ways to reduce bureaucracy and streamline the critical military 
functions we have. It puts a focus on the fighting forces, not the 
bureaucratic forces in the defense structure.
  The bill identifies $10 billion in excessive and unnecessary spending 
and reallocates those funds to our true military capabilities. It also 
modernizes the military retirement system so that many more who served 
have a retirement benefit from serving. The current retirement system 
benefits less than 20 percent of those who served in the Armed Forces 
because the people who benefit from the retirement program are people 
who serve 20 years and retire at that point. This bill would create a 
system where servicemembers and taxpayers join together to create a 
retirement benefit which estimates that 75 percent of the people who 
served in the military would leave with a retirement benefit rather 
than only 17, 18, 20 percent of the people who leave the military. It 
is a reform that really honors all of those who served in a good way 
and doesn't penalize anyone who served. It still allows people who have 
been serving under the old system to stay under the old system. 
Obviously, the longer you stay in that system, the better you are going 
to do. But the options now are basically no retirement benefit or a 
retirement benefit that comes with substantial service and only with 
that kind of service.
  This bill creates retention bonuses to keep people in the military 
longer than 20 years. We have men and women retiring at the height of 
their capacity with technical skills that are not easily replaced. This 
bill recognizes that and looks for ways to encourage them to continue 
to serve.
  Our State, the State of Missouri, has a real commitment to the 
military. More than 17,000 Active-Duty servicemembers serve in 
Missouri. We have important bases in our State. We have 8,000 civilian 
Department of Defense employees and more than 20,000 members of the 
Reserve and the National Guard.
  This bill authorizes funding to build a Consolidated Stealth 
Operations and Nuclear Alert Facility at Whiteman Air Force Base. It 
preserves and prevents the retirement of the A-10 plane that has wide 
support in the Congress, but more importantly the A-10 has wide support 
from the ground forces it supports from the air. When you talk to 
people who serve on the ground, General Odierno and others, will say 
that in their view there is no plane that does what this plane does. Of 
course, those who fly it and support it are very important. Whiteman 
Air Force Base, again, has the 442nd Fighter Wing. It is an A-10 
fighter wing which just returned from a deployment.
  This bill also authorizes upgrades in our cargo aircraft, such as the 
C-130 aircraft, which will help the main force as well as the National 
Guard and Reserves.
  In fact, Rosecrans Air National Guard Base in St. Joseph is a great 
training facility not only for our forces, but that base also serves as 
a training facility for our allies. At least 16 of our allies trained 
at this facility last year so they could figure out how to get 
supplies, how to get troops, and how to move things with those cargo 
planes in ways that they would not otherwise be able to do.
  This bill also takes an important step in moving forward with the new 
bomber. There is money here that would continue to fund the new plan 
for the idea out there for a long-range bomber. We have to have that. 
We have to have a precision bombing capability that is better than 
anybody else's. The planes we are using now have been the best planes 
in the world for a long time, but they will not be the best planes in 
the world forever, and it is time to begin to move forward, as we have 
been, toward that new plane. Those are all important projects. There 
are key initiatives here, such as promoting accountability and 
promoting the standards we need to have for performance in the military 
and how we reward those standards.
  This bill maintains critical quality-of-life programs for men and 
women who serve and their families. This bill addresses the needs of 
our wounded, ill, and injured servicemembers.
  This bill continues to provide critical assistance to our allies, 
particularly our ally Israel, where we have significant common research 
efforts. As we have all seen in recent years, the David's Sling and 
Iron Dome weapon systems are critical not only for Israel's security, 
but they have been a critical proving ground for the kind of response 
that was once looked at as some kind of unachievable ``Star Wars'' 
capacity. Both David's Sling and the Iron Dome have proved that 
capacity is, in fact, truly achievable, and we continue to move forward 
with that kind of defense system in this bill.
  This also goes a long way toward combating threats of cyber space and 
cyber security by evaluating what those vulnerabilities are and dealing 
with those vulnerabilities.
  I want to mention a few amendments I filed and intend to offer before 
we move on with this bill. I believe my amendments will strengthen the 
bill. First, I believe the military's mental health screening process 
can be improved. We learned a lot about mental health and behavioral 
health over the past 15 years. I believe we can continue to adapt and, 
frankly, last year's Defense authorization bill had important steps in 
this direction. I was able to get on the bill when I was a member of 
the committee last year--not just the defense appropriating committee I 
serve on now but the defense authorizing committee I served on then.
  The amendments I will offer will improve the predeployment health 
assessment and postdeployment health reassessment by requiring that all 
servicemembers be screened and that they don't have to meet some 
criteria that every member of the service may not meet. While people 
are serving, it is important to establish the things that have happened 
to them, so if they need help years later, perhaps, and come back and 
ask for assistance in what truly was a post-traumatic event which was 
caused by their service but didn't show up for a number of years, 
having the incidents and things that might have affected their mental 
health is important.
  The National Institutes of Health says that one in four adult 
Americans has a diagnosable and almost always treatable behavioral 
health issue.
  I asked the Surgeon Generals of the Armed Forces if that number 
applies to

[[Page 8695]]

the Armed Forces, and without hesitation they said yes. They said: We 
recruit from the general population and there is no reason that number 
wouldn't apply to people serving us in uniform.
  The key is diagnosable and treatable--diagnosable and treatable in a 
way that people aren't held back by their behavior health issues any 
more than they are held back by their physical health issues. They just 
need to be dealt with.
  We will look at mild traumatic stress injury potential, post-
traumatic stress injury potential, and look at the things that might 
affect somebody as they move forward from their time in the service. 
What happens in the service and what can happen years after really 
matters.
  I think those amendments on mental health meet the evolving needs of 
servicemembers and hopefully the evolving needs of how we understand 
behavioral health as it relates to all other health.
  I have another amendment that would not allow the Army to go below 
the currently authorized end strength level of 475,000 soldiers. There 
are threats around the world, and we need to increase our national 
security.
  We heard General Odierno, Chief of Staff of the Army, testify earlier 
this year before the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee about the risk 
associated with going below 490,000 soldiers. This amendment would say 
you can't go below the 475,000 soldiers until the Secretary of Defense 
tells the Congress how he plans to reduce excess headquarters elements 
and excess administrative overhead.
  Just this morning, I read an article from military.com discussing 
Navy Secretary Ray Mabus's recent comments about excessive bloat--his 
term--in the DOD headquarters functions.
  The article states:

       Secretary Mabus said Pentagon and Congressional budget 
     cutters should look at eliminating extra bureaucracy before 
     slashing funds for sailors and ships.
       Mabus said 20 percent of the Pentagon budget is spent on 
     what he called ``pure overhead''--items not directory linked 
     to readiness or ongoing operations.
       He [Mabus] referred to this ``overhead'' as the fourth 
     estate, specifying entities such as the office of the 
     Secretary of Defense, defense agencies and organizations 
     funded by the Under Secretaries of Defense.

  Here is a direct quote from Secretary Mabus:

       There are other places to look rather than taking tools 
     from the warfighter. To the extent you can, protect the stuff 
     that actually gets to the warfighter.

  I think my amendment would ensure that the Secretary of Defense has 
to take that quote to heart.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate has an order for a vote at this 
hour.
  Mr. BLUNT. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BLUNT. I wish to make one other comment on one other amendment I 
have that I will speak more about later in this debate. It involves a 
concern I have for Iran's growing influence in Iraq and the failure we 
have had in maintaining the commitment we made to those Camp Liberty 
residents whom we promised to protect. More than 100 residents have 
been killed at Camp Liberty.
  I recognize the State Department's ongoing efforts, but they are not 
good enough. I believe the Secretary of Defense needs to certify to the 
defense committees that the central government of Iraq is taking 
appropriate and sufficient steps to ensure the safety and security of 
Iranian dissidents housed in Camp Liberty in Iraq.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                           Amendment No. 1494

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 
minutes on the pending amendment No. 1494.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, the Supreme Court has ruled it is 
unconstitutional to deny Federal benefits to legally married, same-sex 
couples and their children. Yet due to unrelated provisions of the 
Federal Code, State legislatures have the ability to indirectly deny 
Federal benefits to certain disabled veterans and their families solely 
because they are in a same-sex marriage. This is unjust and, according 
to the Supreme Court, it is unconstitutional.
  This amendment we are about to vote on would end the current 
prohibition on benefits for gay and lesbian veterans and their families 
living in States that do not recognize same-sex marriage.
  I wish to quote from testimony we heard from the VFW at a Senate 
Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing last month. The VFW said this, and 
I hope all of my colleagues will keep this in mind as we vote. ``Simply 
put, if a veteran is legally married in a State that recognizes same-
sex marriage, we''--the VFW--``believe the VA should provide benefits 
to his or her spouse or surviving spouse the same way it does for every 
other legally married veteran.''
  Many of us speak all the time about the need to honor the service of 
our veterans and to make sure they have access to the care they 
deserve. This amendment will right a wrong that so many of our veterans 
who have fought and volunteered deserve to have.
  I hope our colleagues will support this amendment so we can ensure 
that those veterans are treated equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 1494, offered by the Senator from New 
Hampshire, Mrs. Shaheen.
  Mr. McCAIN. 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 bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. 
Heller), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from 
Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 203 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--42

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Paul
     Perdue
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Boxer
     Graham
     Heller
     Moran
     Rubio
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). Under the previous order 
requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is 
rejected.


                           Amendment No. 1506

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now 
occurs on amendment No. 1506, offered by the Senator from North 
Carolina, Mr. Tillis.
  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I want to thank Matt Donovan and Stephen 
Barney of Senator McCain's staff for their patience and assistance in 
drafting this amendment.

[[Page 8696]]

  I also want to thank COL Anthony Lazarski of Senator Inhofe's staff 
and, of course my senior colleague from Oklahoma.
  I say to the chairman and Senator Reed, I have the privilege of 
representing America's Global Response Force, the XVIII ABN Corps and 
the 82nd ABN Division.
  As Senator Reed knows from his long service in the division, the 82nd 
is the most decorated combat unit in the Armed Forces--it is America's 
Guard of Honor.
  GEN Colin Powell famously said, ``There is nothing that gets a bad 
guy's attention quicker than knowing the 82nd ABN is flying straight 
for his nose.''
  But to put it bluntly, the Air Force wants to take the ``air'' out of 
``airborne''.
  In 2012 the Air Force decided to deactivate the Reserve Air Wing at 
Pope Army Airfield at Fort Bragg and eliminate onsite daily support for 
training for XVIII ABN Corps, 82nd ABN and USASOC.
  The wing consists of 8-12 C-130Hs.
  Last year this committee required the Air Force to produce a report 
on the C-130 fleet during which time the Air Force was required to 
maintain its wings at Pope and Little Rock for 1 year--the report came 
out in April, the committee expected it last December. The Congress was 
to be given time to respond.
  Unfortunately, the Air Force began dismantling the Wing at Pope long 
before the report was produced and in direct opposition to this 
committee's instructions. When asked about this, the Air Force said, 
``Congress said nothing about us taking away pilots and maintainers, we 
are leaving the Aircraft''.
  The chairman's mark is full of behaviors like this: including Air 
Force refusal to heed the recommendations of the National Commission on 
the Air Force and the SECAF's refusal to cut the size of AF 
headquarters.
  In my brief time in this body I have repeatedly asked the Air Force 
for documentation as to the impact on Airborne and Special Operations 
training the departure of dedicated Air Force Wings will have. I have 
been rebuffed by Pentagon leadership.
  The Deputy Commander of the USAF Reserve said that planes at Pope 
were a ``luxury''. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force said that the 
Air Force needed to maintain C-130s at Minneapolis, Youngstown, and 
Pittsburgh for important missions. With all due respect is there any 
mission at Pittsburgh, Youngstown, and Minneapolis that is as important 
as supporting Airborne and Special Operations units.
  In the last 3 months, the commanders of the XVIII ABN Corps and 82nd 
ABN have taken the extraordinary step of delivering public speeches 
noting that Airborne and Special Operations leadership were not 
consulted about the Air Force decision and that the loss of onsite 
planes will severely hamper their ability to train and meet 
requirements of emergency contingencies.
  The Pope planes provide between 25 to 40 percent of all Airborne and 
SOF daily training missions. Last year they dropped 50 percent of the 
82nd ABN's chutes; 440 AW provides 100 percent of 18 ASOG, Air Force, 
training--Air Force Special Operations Group.
  Even as a cost savings device, the transfer of 8 to 12 planes out of 
Pope makes no sense, as planes will have to be flown in--often on a 
voluntarily basis if they are Reserve units--from around the country 
and those units will have to go on TDY orders, etcetera. This also does 
not provide for the moving to the left effects of weather grounding 
planes that would have to fly into Pope from the rest of the country. 
As the XVIII ABN Corps Commander said, the downstream effects will be 
problematic.
  This amendment is simple and it supports the C-130 Avionic 
Modernization Program that the Air Land Subcommittee validated 
yesterday by accepting the chairman's $75 million mark and the Manchin 
amendment.
  The Secretary of the Air Force shall, by September 30, 2017, station 
aircraft previously modified by the C-130 Avionics Modernization 
Program, AMP, in direct support of the daily training and contingency 
requirements of the Army Airborne and Special Operations units. The 
Secretary shall provide such personnel as required to maintain and 
operate such aircraft.
  There are roughly 260 C-130Hs left--I believe the AF will try and 
retire up to 100, and it will hopefully replace 50 more with C-130J 
models--this leaves 100 C-130Hs that need AMP.
  The AF spent $2.3 billion on C-130H AMP, the program was on schedule 
and cost when the AF cancelled it, the design was validated by the 
JROC, Joint Requirements Oversight Council, and the program had begun 
Low Rate Initial Production, LRIP.
  We currently have five C-130H AMP aircraft at Little Rock that will 
be flown to the bone yard at a loss of approx $300 million, as well as 
four AMP kits that can be modified to fit any C-130H, three simulators 
and all software that will be thrown away
  We can have nine AMP C-130Hs plus simulators and software for $75 
million--this also adheres to the law Congress passed last year and was 
validated by the Manchin amendment yesterday.
  The bottom line is, if the AF does not take this course, it will send 
the five C-130H AMP aircraft to the boneyard, wasting $300 million, not 
to mention the simulators and software. Total amount spent for AMP was 
$2.3 billion. Program was approved by JROC and was on schedule and cost 
when AF tried to cancel it. There are roughly 260 C-130Hs left--I 
believe the AF will try and retire up to 100, and it will hopefully 
replace 50 more with C-130J models--this leaves 100 C-130Hs that need 
AMP. Total cost to get nine aircraft, all simulators and software 
running again is approximately $75M which was funded this year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, very quickly, the Senator from North 
Carolina worked very hard to get legislative language in the bill which 
has a study of the sufficiency of the airlift requirements for the 
units stationed at Fort Bragg, NC. This legislation would take several 
aircraft that are at Little Rock and move them up to North Carolina. It 
would not effectively help the mobility of our forces. It would 
micromanage the use of military aircraft. As such, I would ask that 
there be a ``no'' vote.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from South Carolina 
(Mr. Graham), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from 
Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 
the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), and the Senator from Vermont 
(Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 204 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Burr
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--44

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin

[[Page 8697]]


     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cotton
     Donnelly
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Alexander
     Boxer
     Durbin
     Graham
     Heller
     Moran
     Rubio
     Sanders
  The amendment (No. 1506) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                             Change Of Vote

  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 204 I voted yes. It 
was my intention to vote no. I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 204, I voted yes. It 
was my intention to vote no. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I 
be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Vote Explanation

 Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for vote 
No. 204 on Tillis amendment No. 1506. Had I been in the Chamber I would 
have opposed this amendment. Section 136 of the underlying bill 
requires the Secretary of the Air Force in consultation with the 
Secretary of the Army to examine the daily training and contingency 
requirements of the C-130 fleet on this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


Amendments Nos. 1618, 1539, 1551, 1571, 1484, and 1511 to Amendment No. 
                                  1463

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the ranking member and I have a small 
package of amendments that have been cleared by both sides.
  I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up, 
reported by number, and agreed to en bloc: Shaheen No. 1618; McCain, 
Blumenthal, and Flake No. 1539; Shaheen No. 1551; Warner No. 1571; 
Hoeven No. 1484; and Heller No. 1511.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendments en bloc by number.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for others, proposes 
     en bloc amendments numbered 1618, 1539, 1551, 1571, 1484, and 
     1511 to amendment No. 1463.

  The amendments en bloc are as follows:


                           Amendment No. 1618

       In the appropriate place please insert the following:
       SENSE OF SENATE.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the accidental transfer of live Bacillus anthracis, 
     also known as anthrax, from an Army laboratory to more than 
     28 laboratories located in at least 12 states and three 
     countries discovered in May 2015 represents a serious safety 
     lapse;
       (2) the Department of Defense, in cooperation with the 
     Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation, should continue to investigate the 
     cause of this lapse and determine if protective protocols 
     should be strengthened;
       (3) the Department of Defense should reassess standards on 
     a regular basis to ensure they are current and effective to 
     prevent a reoccurrence; and
       (4) the Department of Defense should keep Congress apprised 
     of the investigation, any potential public health or safety 
     risk, remedial actions taken and plans to regularly reassess 
     standards.


                           Amendment No. 1539

  (Purpose: To prohibit the Department of Defense from entering into 
  contracts to facilitate payments for honoring members of the Armed 
                       Forces at sporting events)

       Insert after section 342 the following:

     SEC. 342A. PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTS TO FACILITATE PAYMENTS 
                   FOR HONORING MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AT 
                   SPORTING EVENTS.

       (a) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the Army National Guard has paid professional sports 
     organizations to honor members of the Armed Forces;
       (2) any organization wishing to honor members of the Armed 
     Forces should do so on a voluntary basis, and the Department 
     of Defense should take action to ensure that no payments be 
     made for such activities in the future; and
       (3) any organization, including the National Football 
     League, that has accepted taxpayer funds to honor members of 
     the Armed Forces should consider directing an equivalent 
     amount of funding in the form of a donation to a charitable 
     organization that supports members of the Armed Forces, 
     veterans, and their families.
       (b) Prohibition.--
       (1) In general.--Subchapter I of chapter 134 of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 
     2241a the following new section:

     ``Sec. 2241b. Prohibition on contracts providing payments for 
       activities to honor members of the armed forces

       ``(a) Prohibition.--The Department of Defense may not enter 
     into any contract or other agreement under which payments are 
     to be made in exchange for activities by the contractor 
     intended to honor, or giving the appearance of honoring, 
     members of the armed forces (whether members of the regular 
     components or the reserve components) at any form of sporting 
     event.
       ``(b) Construction.--Nothing in subsection (a) shall be 
     construed as prohibiting the Department from taking actions 
     to facilitate activities intended to honor members of the 
     armed forces at sporting events that are provided on a pro 
     bono basis or otherwise funded with non-Federal funds if such 
     activities are provided and received in accordance with 
     applicable rules and regulations regarding the acceptance of 
     gifts by the military departments, the armed forces, and 
     members of the armed forces.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of subchapter I of chapter 134 of such title is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 2241a 
     the following new item:

``2241b. Prohibition on contracts providing payments for activities to 
              honor members of the armed forces at sporting events.''.


                           Amendment No. 1551

  (Purpose: To require a study and report on the changes to the Joint 
    Travel Regulations related to flat rate per diem for long term 
      temporary duty travel that took effect on November 1, 2014)

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

     SEC. 622. STUDY AND REPORT ON POLICY CHANGES TO THE JOINT 
                   TRAVEL REGULATIONS.

       (a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct a study on the impact of the policy changes to 
     the Joint Travel Regulations for the Uniformed Service 
     Members and Department of Defense Civilian Employees related 
     to flat rate per diem for long term temporary duty travel 
     that took effect on November 1, 2014. The study shall assess 
     the following:
       (1) The impact of such changes on shipyard workers who 
     travel on long-term temporary duty assignments.
       (2) Whether such changes have discouraged employees of the 
     Department of Defense, including civilian employees at 
     shipyards and depots, from volunteering for important 
     temporary duty travel assignments.
       (b) Report.--Not later than June 1, 2016, the Comptroller 
     General shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of 
     the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House 
     of Representatives a report on the study required by 
     subsection (a).


                           Amendment No. 1571

 (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress on diversity among members 
                          of the Armed Forces)

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

     SEC. 524. SENSE OF CONGRESS RECOGNIZING THE DIVERSITY OF THE 
                   MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The United States military includes individuals with a 
     variety of national, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds that 
     have roots all over the world.
       (2) In addition to diverse backgrounds, members of the 
     Armed Forces come from numerous religious traditions, 
     including Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, non-
     denominational, nonpracticing, and many more.
       (3) Members of the Armed Forces from diverse backgrounds 
     and religious traditions have lost their lives or been 
     injured defending the national security of the United States.
       (4) Diversity contributes to the strength of the Armed 
     Forces, and service members from different backgrounds and 
     religious traditions share the same goal of defending the 
     United States.
       (5) The unity of the Armed Forces reflects the strength in 
     diversity that makes the United States a great Nation.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the United States should--
       (1) continue to recognize and promote diversity in the 
     Armed Forces; and

[[Page 8698]]

       (2) honor those from all diverse backgrounds and religious 
     traditions who have made sacrifices in serving the United 
     States through the Armed Forces


                           Amendment No. 1484

 (Purpose: To require a report on Air National Guard contributions to 
                     the RQ-4 Global Hawk mission)

       In title XVI, after subtitle A, insert the following:

  Subtitle B--Defense Intelligence and Intelligence-related Activities

     SEC. 1621. REPORT ON AIR NATIONAL GUARD CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE 
                   RQ-4 GLOBAL HAWK MISSION.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Air 
     Force, in coordination with the Chief of Staff of the Air 
     Force and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, shall 
     submit to Congress a report on the feasibility of using the 
     Air National Guard in association with the active duty Air 
     Force to operate and maintain the RQ-4 Global Hawk.
       (b) Contents.--The report required by (a) shall include the 
     following:
       (1) An assessment of the costs, training requirements, and 
     personnel required to create an association for the Global 
     Hawk mission consisting of members of the Air Force serving 
     on active duty and members of the Air National Guard.
       (2) The capacity of the Air National Guard to support an 
     association described in paragraph (1).


                           Amendment No. 1511

 (Purpose: To require additional elements in the report on the plan on 
          the privatization of the defense commissary system)

       On page 265, strike line 15 and insert the following:
     result of the implementation of the plan;
       (C) an assessment whether the privatized defense commissary 
     system under the plan can sustain the current savings to 
     patrons of the defense commissary system;
       (D) an assessment of the impact that privatization of the 
     defense commissary system under the plan would have on all 
     eligible beneficiaries;
       (E) an assessment whether the privatized defense commissary 
     system under the plan can sustain the continued operation of 
     existing commissaries; and
       (F) an assessment whether privatization of the defense 
     commissary system is feasible for overseas commissaries.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amendments Nos. 
1618, 1539, 1551, 1571, 1484, and 1511 are agreed to en bloc.


                Amendment No. 1543 to Amendment No. 1463

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Paul, I ask unanimous 
consent to set aside the pending amendment in order to call up 
amendment No. 1543.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Paul, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1543 to amendment No. 1463.

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

  (Purpose: To strengthen employee cost savings suggestions programs 
                     within the Federal Government)

       At the end of title XI, add the following:

     SEC. 1116. COST SAVINGS ENHANCEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 4512 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting 
     ``or identification of surplus funds or unnecessary budget 
     authority'' after ``mismanagement'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or identification'' 
     after ``disclosure''; and
       (C) in the matter following paragraph (2), by inserting 
     ``or identification'' after ``disclosure''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) The Inspector General of an agency or other agency 
     employee designated under subsection (b) shall refer to the 
     Chief Financial Officer of the agency any potential surplus 
     funds or unnecessary budget authority identified by an 
     employee, along with any recommendations of the Inspector 
     General or other agency employee.
       ``(d)(1) If the Chief Financial Officer of an agency 
     determines that rescission of potential surplus funds or 
     unnecessary budget authority identified by an employee would 
     not hinder the effectiveness of the agency, except as 
     provided in subsection (e), the head of the agency shall 
     transfer the amount of the surplus funds or unnecessary 
     budget authority from the applicable appropriations account 
     to the general fund of the Treasury.
       ``(2) Title X of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
     Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 681 et seq.) shall not apply to 
     transfers under paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Any amounts transferred under paragraph (1) shall be 
     deposited in the Treasury and used for deficit reduction, 
     except that in the case of a fiscal year for which there is 
     no Federal budget deficit, such amounts shall be used to 
     reduce the Federal debt (in such manner as the Secretary of 
     the Treasury considers appropriate).
       ``(e)(1) The head of an agency may retain not more than 10 
     percent of amounts to be transferred to the general fund of 
     the Treasury under subsection (d).
       ``(2) Amounts retained by the head of an agency under 
     paragraph (1) may be--
       ``(A) used for the purpose of paying a cash award under 
     subsection (a) to 1 or more employees who identified the 
     surplus funds or unnecessary budget authority; and
       ``(B) to the extent amounts remain after paying cash awards 
     under subsection (a), transferred or reprogrammed for use by 
     the agency, in accordance with any limitation on such a 
     transfer or reprogramming under any other provision of law.
       ``(f)(1) The head of each agency shall submit to the 
     Director of the Office of Personnel Management an annual 
     report regarding--
       ``(A) each disclosure of possible fraud, waste, or 
     mismanagement or identification of potentially surplus funds 
     or unnecessary budget authority by an employee of the agency 
     determined by the agency to have merit;
       ``(B) the total savings achieved through disclosures and 
     identifications described in subparagraph (A); and
       ``(C) the number and amount of cash awards by the agency 
     under subsection (a).
       ``(2)(A) The head of each agency shall include the 
     information described in paragraph (1) in each budget request 
     of the agency submitted to the Office of Management and 
     Budget as part of the preparation of the budget of the 
     President submitted to Congress under section 1105(a) of 
     title 31, United States Code.
       ``(B) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management 
     shall submit to the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate, the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Government Accountability Office an 
     annual report on Federal cost saving and awards based on the 
     reports submitted under subparagraph (A).
       ``(g) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management 
     shall--
       ``(1) ensure that the cash award program of each agency 
     complies with this section; and
       ``(2) submit to Congress an annual certification indicating 
     whether the cash award program of each agency complies with 
     this section.
       ``(h) Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of 
     this subsection, and every 3 years thereafter, the 
     Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to 
     Congress a report on the operation of the cost savings and 
     awards program under this section, including any 
     recommendations for legislative changes.''.
       (b) Officers Eligible for Cash Awards.--
       (1) In general.--Section 4509 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 4509. Prohibition of cash award to certain officers

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the term `agency'--
       ``(1) has the meaning given that term under section 551(1); 
     and
       ``(2) includes an entity described in section 4501(1).
       ``(b) Prohibition.--An officer may not receive a cash award 
     under this subchapter if the officer--
       ``(1) serves in a position at level I of the Executive 
     Schedule;
       ``(2) is the head of an agency; or
       ``(3) is a commissioner, board member, or other voting 
     member of an independent establishment.''.
       (2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 45 of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 4509 and 
     inserting the following:

``4509. Prohibition of cash award to certain officers.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                Amendment No. 1564 to Amendment No. 1463

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside, and on behalf of Mr. Blumenthal, I call up 
amendment No. 1564.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island, [Mr. Reed], for Mr. 
     Blumenthal, proposes an amendment numbered 1564 to amendment 
     No. 1463.

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


[[Page 8699]]

      (Purpose: To increase civil penalties for violations of the 
                    Servicemembers Civil Relief Act)

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

     SEC. 1085. INCREASE IN CIVIL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF 
                   SERVICEMEMBERS CIVIL RELIEF ACT.

       (a) In General.--Section 801(b)(3) of the Servicemembers 
     Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. App. 597(b)(3)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``$55,000'' and 
     inserting ``$110,000''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``$110,000'' and 
     inserting ``$220,000''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date that is 180 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act and shall apply with respect to 
     violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. 
     App. 501 et seq.) that occur on or after such date.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that this 
amendment be considered as if it were offered before Senator Paul's 
amendment to maintain an alternation between Democratic amendments and 
Republican amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 1559 to Amendment No. 1463

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside, and on behalf of Senator Durbin I call up 
amendment No. 1559.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for Mr. Durbin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1559 to amendment No. 1463.

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

 (Purpose: To prohibit the award of Department of Defense contracts to 
                    inverted domestic corporations)

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

     SEC. 832. PROHIBITION ON AWARDING OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                   CONTRACTS TO INVERTED DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS.

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

     ``Sec. 2338. Prohibition on awarding contracts to inverted 
       domestic corporations

       ``(a) Prohibition.--
       ``(1) In general.--The head of an agency may not award a 
     contract for the procurement of property or services to--
       ``(A) any foreign incorporated entity that such head has 
     determined is an inverted domestic corporation or any 
     subsidiary of such entity; or
       ``(B) any joint venture if more than 10 percent of the 
     joint venture (by vote or value) is owned by a foreign 
     incorporated entity that such head has determined is an 
     inverted domestic corporation or any subsidiary of such 
     entity.
       ``(2) Subcontracts.--
       ``(A) In general.--The head of an executive agency shall 
     include in each contract for the procurement of property or 
     services awarded by the executive agency with a value in 
     excess of $10,000,000, other than a contract for exclusively 
     commercial items, a clause that prohibits the prime 
     contractor on such contract from--
       ``(i) awarding a first-tier subcontract with a value 
     greater than 10 percent of the total value of the prime 
     contract to an entity or joint venture described in paragraph 
     (1); or
       ``(ii) structuring subcontract tiers in a manner designed 
     to avoid the limitation in paragraph (1) by enabling an 
     entity or joint venture described in paragraph (1) to perform 
     more than 10 percent of the total value of the prime contract 
     as a lower-tier subcontractor.
       ``(B) Penalties.--The contract clause included in contracts 
     pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall provide that, in the event 
     that the prime contractor violates the contract clause--
       ``(i) the prime contract may be terminated for default; and
       ``(ii) the matter may be referred to the suspension or 
     debarment official for the appropriate agency and may be a 
     basis for suspension or debarment of the prime contractor.
       ``(b) Inverted Domestic Corporation.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, a foreign 
     incorporated entity shall be treated as an inverted domestic 
     corporation if, pursuant to a plan (or a series of related 
     transactions)--
       ``(A) the entity completes before, on, or after May 8, 
     2014, the direct or indirect acquisition of--
       ``(i) substantially all of the properties held directly or 
     indirectly by a domestic corporation; or
       ``(ii) substantially all of the assets of, or substantially 
     all of the properties constituting a trade or business of, a 
     domestic partnership; and
       ``(B) after the acquisition, either--
       ``(i) more than 50 percent of the stock (by vote or value) 
     of the entity is held--

       ``(I) in the case of an acquisition with respect to a 
     domestic corporation, by former shareholders of the domestic 
     corporation by reason of holding stock in the domestic 
     corporation; or
       ``(II) in the case of an acquisition with respect to a 
     domestic partnership, by former partners of the domestic 
     partnership by reason of holding a capital or profits 
     interest in the domestic partnership; or

       ``(ii) the management and control of the expanded 
     affiliated group which includes the entity occurs, directly 
     or indirectly, primarily within the United States, as 
     determined pursuant to regulations prescribed by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, and such expanded affiliated group 
     has significant domestic business activities.
       ``(2) Exception for corporations with substantial business 
     activities in foreign country of organization.--
       ``(A) In general.--A foreign incorporated entity described 
     in paragraph (1) shall not be treated as an inverted domestic 
     corporation if after the acquisition the expanded affiliated 
     group which includes the entity has substantial business 
     activities in the foreign country in which or under the law 
     of which the entity is created or organized when compared to 
     the total business activities of such expanded affiliated 
     group.
       ``(B) Substantial business activities.--The Secretary of 
     the Treasury (or the Secretary's delegate) shall establish 
     regulations for determining whether an affiliated group has 
     substantial business activities for purposes of subparagraph 
     (A), except that such regulations may not treat any group as 
     having substantial business activities if such group would 
     not be considered to have substantial business activities 
     under the regulations prescribed under section 7874 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as in effect on May 8, 2014.
       ``(3) Significant domestic business activities.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(B)(ii), an 
     expanded affiliated group has significant domestic business 
     activities if at least 25 percent of--
       ``(i) the employees of the group are based in the United 
     States;
       ``(ii) the employee compensation incurred by the group is 
     incurred with respect to employees based in the United 
     States;
       ``(iii) the assets of the group are located in the United 
     States; or
       ``(iv) the income of the group is derived in the United 
     States.
       ``(B) Determination.--Determinations pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A) shall be made in the same manner as such 
     determinations are made for purposes of determining 
     substantial business activities under regulations referred to 
     in paragraph (2) as in effect on May 8, 2014, but applied by 
     treating all references in such regulations to `foreign 
     country' and `relevant foreign country' as references to `the 
     United States'. The Secretary of the Treasury (or the 
     Secretary's delegate) may issue regulations decreasing the 
     threshold percent in any of the tests under such regulations 
     for determining if business activities constitute significant 
     domestic business activities for purposes of this paragraph.
       ``(c) Waiver.--
       ``(1) In general.--The head of an agency may waive 
     subsection (a) with respect to any Federal Government 
     contract under the authority of such head if the head 
     determines that the waiver is required in the interest of 
     national security or is necessary for the efficient or 
     effective administration of Federal or Federally-funded 
     programs that provide health benefits to individuals.
       ``(2) Report to congress.--The head of an agency issuing a 
     waiver under paragraph (1) shall, not later than 14 days 
     after issuing such waiver, submit a written notification of 
     the waiver to the Committees on Armed Services and 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives.
       ``(d) Applicability.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     this section shall not apply to any contract entered into 
     before the date of the enactment of this section.
       ``(2) Task and delivery orders.--This section shall apply 
     to any task or delivery order issued after the date of the 
     enactment of this section pursuant to a contract entered into 
     before, on, or after such date of enactment.
       ``(3) Scope.--This section applies only to contracts 
     subject to regulation under the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation and the Defense Supplement to the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation.
       ``(e) Definitions and Special Rules.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this section, the terms `expanded 
     affiliated group', `foreign incorporated entity', `person', 
     `domestic', and `foreign' have the meaning given those terms 
     in section 835(c) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 
     U.S.C. 395(c)).
       ``(2) Special rules.--In applying subsection (b) of this 
     section for purposes of subsection (a) of this section, the 
     rules described

[[Page 8700]]

     under 835(c)(1) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 
     U.S.C. 395(c)(1)) shall apply.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 2337 
     the following new item:

``2338. Prohibition on awarding contracts to inverted domestic 
              corporations.''

       (b) Regulations Regarding Management and Control.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury (or the 
     Secretary's delegate) shall, for purposes of section 
     2338(b)(1)(B)(ii) of title 10, United States Code, as added 
     by subsection (a), prescribe regulations for purposes of 
     determining cases in which the management and control of an 
     expanded affiliated group is to be treated as occurring, 
     directly or indirectly, primarily within the United States. 
     The regulations prescribed under the preceding sentence shall 
     apply to periods after May 8, 2014.
       (2) Executive officers and senior management.--The 
     regulations prescribed under paragraph (1) shall provide that 
     the management and control of an expanded affiliated group 
     shall be treated as occurring, directly or indirectly, 
     primarily within the United States if substantially all of 
     the executive officers and senior management of the expanded 
     affiliated group who exercise day-to-day responsibility for 
     making decisions involving strategic, financial, and 
     operational policies of the expanded affiliated group are 
     based or primarily located within the United States. 
     Individuals who in fact exercise such day-to-day 
     responsibilities shall be treated as executive officers and 
     senior management regardless of their title.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask that Senators wait to speak--which I 
will be asking to be in morning business in about 2 or 3 minutes--while 
we finish seeing if the modification that may be at the desk is 
approved. I ask for their patience for 2 or 3 minutes until we get this 
done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 1543, as Modified

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
amendment, No. 1543, be modified with the changes at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       At the end of title XI, add the following:

     SEC. 1116. COST SAVINGS ENHANCEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 4512 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting 
     ``or identification of surplus funds or unnecessary budget 
     authority'' after ``mismanagement'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or identification'' 
     after ``disclosure''; and
       (C) in the matter following paragraph (2), by inserting 
     ``or identification'' after ``disclosure''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) The Inspector General of an agency or other agency 
     employee designated under subsection (b) shall refer to the 
     Chief Financial Officer of the agency any potential surplus 
     funds or unnecessary budget authority identified by an 
     employee, along with any recommendations of the Inspector 
     General or other agency employee.
       ``(d)(1) If the Chief Financial Officer of an agency 
     determines that rescission of potential surplus funds or 
     unnecessary budget authority identified by an employee would 
     not hinder the effectiveness of the agency, except as 
     provided in subsection (e), the head of the agency shall 
     transfer the amount of the surplus funds or unnecessary 
     budget authority from the applicable appropriations account 
     to the general fund of the Treasury.
       ``(2) Any amounts transferred under paragraph (1) shall be 
     deposited in the Treasury and used for deficit reduction, 
     except that in the case of a fiscal year for which there is 
     no Federal budget deficit, such amounts shall be used to 
     reduce the Federal debt (in such manner as the Secretary of 
     the Treasury considers appropriate).
       ``(e)(1) The head of an agency may retain not more than 10 
     percent of amounts to be transferred to the general fund of 
     the Treasury under subsection (d).
       ``(2) Amounts retained by the head of an agency under 
     paragraph (1) may be--
       ``(A) used for the purpose of paying a cash award under 
     subsection (a) to 1 or more employees who identified the 
     surplus funds or unnecessary budget authority; and
       ``(B) to the extent amounts remain after paying cash awards 
     under subsection (a), transferred or reprogrammed for use by 
     the agency, in accordance with any limitation on such a 
     transfer or reprogramming under any other provision of law.
       ``(f)(1) The head of each agency shall submit to the 
     Director of the Office of Personnel Management an annual 
     report regarding--
       ``(A) each disclosure of possible fraud, waste, or 
     mismanagement or identification of potentially surplus funds 
     or unnecessary budget authority by an employee of the agency 
     determined by the agency to have merit;
       ``(B) the total savings achieved through disclosures and 
     identifications described in subparagraph (A); and
       ``(C) the number and amount of cash awards by the agency 
     under subsection (a).
       ``(2)(A) The head of each agency shall include the 
     information described in paragraph (1) in each budget request 
     of the agency submitted to the Office of Management and 
     Budget as part of the preparation of the budget of the 
     President submitted to Congress under section 1105(a) of 
     title 31, United States Code.
       ``(B) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management 
     shall submit to the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate, the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Government Accountability Office an 
     annual report on Federal cost saving and awards based on the 
     reports submitted under subparagraph (A).
       ``(g) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management 
     shall--
       ``(1) ensure that the cash award program of each agency 
     complies with this section; and
       ``(2) submit to Congress an annual certification indicating 
     whether the cash award program of each agency complies with 
     this section.
       ``(h) Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of 
     this subsection, and every 3 years thereafter, the 
     Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to 
     Congress a report on the operation of the cost savings and 
     awards program under this section, including any 
     recommendations for legislative changes.''.
       (b) Officers Eligible for Cash Awards.--
       (1) In general.--Section 4509 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 4509. Prohibition of cash award to certain officers

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the term `agency'--
       ``(1) has the meaning given that term under section 551(1); 
     and
       ``(2) includes an entity described in section 4501(1).
       ``(b) Prohibition.--An officer may not receive a cash award 
     under this subchapter if the officer--
       ``(1) serves in a position at level I of the Executive 
     Schedule;
       ``(2) is the head of an agency; or
       ``(3) is a commissioner, board member, or other voting 
     member of an independent establishment.''.
       (2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 45 of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 4509 and 
     inserting the following:

``4509. Prohibition of cash award to certain officers.''.

                          ____________________