[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9762-9788]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016

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

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

  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.
       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.
       Markey amendment No. 1645 (to amendment No. 1463), 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.
       Reed (for Blumenthal) modified amendment No. 1564 (to 
     amendment No. 1463), to enhance protections accorded to 
     servicemembers and their spouses.
       McCain (for Paul) modified amendment No. 1543 (to amendment 
     No. 1463), to strengthen employee cost savings suggestions 
     programs within the Federal Government.
       Reed (for Durbin) modified amendment No. 1559 (to amendment 
     No. 1463), to prohibit the award of Department of Defense 
     contracts to inverted domestic corporations.
       Fischer/Booker amendment No. 1825 (to amendment No. 1463), 
     to authorize appropriations for national security aspects of 
     the Merchant Marine for fiscal years 2016 and 2017.
       McCain (for Hatch) amendment No. 1911 (to amendment No. 
     1456), to require a report on the Department of Defense 
     definition of and policy regarding software sustainment.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to tell my colleagues that I 
think we are winding down here. We have several other issues to 
address, but I think it is very possible that we could see the end here 
for final passage of the bill. There are still some issues that need to 
be resolved, but I am grateful for the progress all of my colleagues 
have made on both sides of the aisle.
  I would like to call up and speak briefly on McCain amendment No. 
1482. This amendment would prohibit the Secretary of Defense or the 
Secretary of a military department from funding or conducting medical 
research or development projects unless the Secretary determines that 
the research or project is designed to protect, enhance, or restore the 
health and safety of

[[Page 9763]]

members of the Armed Forces through phases of deployment, combat, 
medical recovery, and rehabilitation.
  I will not seek a vote on this amendment, but I will say that it is 
an issue which must be addressed if we are going to spend American tax 
dollars on defending this Nation, the security, and the men and women 
who are serving.
  What I am going to show my colleagues is what happens with almost any 
bad deal around here, and that is the incredible increase in 
congressionally directed spending on medical research which is on the 
Department of Defense authorization bill--not on the Health and Human 
Services appropriations but on Defense. When we are cutting defense, 
when we are experiencing all the bad results of sequestration, we 
continue to grow to nearly $1 billion in medical research that has 
nothing to do with defense.
  I am all for medical research. I am all in. The National Institutes 
of Health is doing great things. I am all for it. But when we take it 
out of defense spending rather than what it should be taken out of, 
which is Health and Human Services, then I object to that.
  I am aware of the outcry that has taken place at these various 
organizations which are dedicated to improving the health of Americans, 
and so therefore of course I am not subjecting it to a vote. But it is 
outrageous that this has gone up to nearly $1 billion in spending that 
is taken out of the Department of Defense.
  My friends, what it is, is the Willie Sutton syndrome. When the 
famous bank robber Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, he 
said, ``Because that's where the money is.''
  So this medical research, which has nothing to do with defense, comes 
out of the Department of Defense. It is wrong, and it needs to stop, as 
every scarce dollar that is earmarked for defense must go to the 
defense of this Nation.
  I know what the response is going to be: Oh my God, McCain, you want 
to take money away from--fill in the blank. No, I am not asking to take 
money from any medical research; I am asking that it be put where it 
belongs, and that is not in the Department of Defense. It is not about 
disputing the great value of much of the medical research Congress and 
America's taxpayers make possible. I will match my record on support 
for medical research with anyone's. Any person who has reached my 
advanced age likely has some firsthand experience with the miracles of 
modern medicine and gratitude for all who support it. Much of the 
medical research for which Congress appropriates money each year helps 
to extend and improve the lives of many Americans. This amendment is 
not about the value of medical research or whether Congress should 
support it.
  Immediately I will hear the response waiting now: Oh, McCain, you 
want to cut very beneficial research that helps the lives of Americans. 
No. No, I do not. I want it appropriated from the appropriate 
appropriations bill, not from defense.
  This amendment is absolutely about what departments and agencies of 
our government should be funding what kinds of medical research and 
specifically what the proper role of the Department of Defense is in 
this work.
  Over the past 20 years, Congress has added billions of dollars to the 
Department of Defense's medical research portfolio for disease research 
that has nothing to do with defense. Since 1992, Congress has 
appropriated almost $10 billion for medical research in the Department 
of Defense's Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs, and 
only about $2.4 billion of that $10 billion was for research that could 
be considered in any way relevant to the military.
  To be sure, the Department of Defense has a proper and vital role to 
play in medical research that benefits the unique work of our men and 
women in uniform in areas such as prosthetics, traumatic brain injury, 
and spinal cord injury, among others. However, through years of 
congressionally directed spending, the DOD medical research program has 
been used to fund research on breast cancer, prostrate cancer, lung 
cancer, genetic disorders such as muscular dystrophy, and even mad cow 
disease.
  In other words, over the last 2 decades, in a time of war and fiscal 
challenge, even despite sequestration, Congress has appropriated $7.3 
billion for medical research that is totally unrelated to the 
military--money that the Department of Defense did not request and our 
military did not need.
  This graph right behind me shows the explosive growth that has 
occurred in this program since 1992. At that time, in 1992, Congress 
had funded one research project for breast cancer. Over time, that has 
now grown to 30 separate medical research projects funded by the 
Congress. Funding has increased by almost 4,000 percent, from $25 
million in 1992 to almost $1 billion last year. I will repeat that for 
the benefit of my colleagues. Spending on medical research at DOD--
nearly 75 percent of which has nothing to do with the military--has 
grown 4,000 percent since 1992. Even the late Senator from Alaska, Ted 
Stevens, under whose leadership the original funding for breast cancer 
was added, reversed course in 2006 because the money would be ``going 
to medical research instead of the needs of the military.''
  During the floor debate on the annual Defense appropriations bill, 
Senator Stevens had this to say:

       We could not have any more money going out of the Defense 
     bill to take care of medical research when medical research 
     is basically a function of the NIH. . . . It is not our 
     business. I confess, I am the one who made the first mistake 
     years ago. I am the one who suggested that we include some 
     money for breast cancer research. It was languishing at the 
     time. . . . Since that time it has grown to $750 million . . 
     . in the last bill we had, dealing with medical research that 
     had nothing to do with the Department of Defense.

  My friends, when Senator Ted Stevens is saying that a congressionally 
directed spending program has gotten out of hand, we know there is a 
problem. Yet, despite the urgings of Senator Stevens in 2006, the 
problem has only gotten worse since then. Last year alone Congress 
appropriated $971.6 million for medical research programs that the 
Department of Defense did not request in its budget. More than $280 
million of that money was appropriated for cancer research in the 
defense budget while six other Federal agencies spent more than $50 
billion on cancer research in fiscal year 2015.
  I will put that in perspective. For the amount of money that Congress 
appropriated for medical research last year at the Department of 
Defense--again, most of which had nothing to do with the military and 
which the Department did not request--we could have bought 12 F-18 
Superhornets, 2 littoral combat ships or roughly 1 Army brigade combat 
team.
  My friends, in these days of sequestration, that is not acceptable. 
Once again, I am sure every Member of this body agrees that this 
research is vitally important to Americans suffering from these 
diseases, to the families and friends who care for them, and to all of 
those who know the pain and grief of losing a loved one. But this 
research should not be funded by the Department of Defense. It belongs 
in civilian departments and agencies of our government.
  Appropriating money in this way only harms our national security by 
reducing the funding available for military-relevant medical research 
that helps protect service men and women on the battlefield and for 
military capabilities they desperately need to perform their missions. 
Furthermore, this kind of misguided spending only puts decisionmaking 
about medical research in the hands of lobbyists and politicians 
instead of medical experts where it belongs.
  So I say to my colleagues, what I had proposed and will not seek a 
vote on--because the result is very clear--is a commonsense amendment. 
It focuses the Department's research efforts on medical research that 
will lead to lifesaving advancements in battlefield medicine and new 
therapies for recovery and rehabilitation of servicemembers wounded 
both physically and mentally on the battlefield. It could finally begin 
the long overdue process of shifting the hundreds of millions of 
dollars

[[Page 9764]]

of nonmilitary medical research spending out of the Department of 
Defense and into the appropriate civilian departments and agencies of 
our government. That is a change that needs to start now, and I hope my 
colleagues, especially my friends on the Appropriations Committee, will 
make that happen.
  I want to point out again that we started in fiscal year 1992 with 
$25 million. We are now up to nearly $1 trillion, and I am sure that 
the appropriators have an equal or like amount that they are proposing.
  I see that my colleague from Illinois is here on the floor, and I 
know he will defend with vigor, passion, love, and every emotion he has 
what we are doing because of those who are suffering from illnesses 
such as breast cancer and all of the other terrible things that afflict 
our society. I say to my friends who will come to the floor in a high 
dudgeon over what I am proposing: I am not saying that we should cut 
any of these programs--not a single one. We should probably increase 
them. But let's put them where they belong, and that is not in the 
Department of Defense.
  While I have the floor, I want to talk about some other issues. 
Former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates said in an interview over the 
weekend:

       What it feels like to me is really what the President said 
     last week, which was a lack of strategy. Just adding a few 
     hundred troops doing more of the same I think is not likely 
     to make much of a difference. . . . We should have had a 
     strategy a year ago. . . . And we have to be willing, if we 
     think ISIS is truly a threat to the United States and to our 
     interests, we have to be willing to put Americans at risk. 
     That's just a fact of life. . . . [I]f the mission [President 
     Obama] has set for the military is to degrade and destroy 
     ISIS, the rules of engagement that he has imposed on them 
     prevent them from achieving that mission.

  I don't know anyone who is more respected by both sides of the aisle 
and served Presidents of both parties in key administrative positions 
than Secretary of Defense Bob Gates. Quite often, I and my friend from 
South Carolina, Senator Graham, are accused of being biased and 
partisan and attacking the President and his strategies in a partisan 
fashion. I will remind my colleagues that in 2006 Senator Graham and I 
called for the resignation of the Secretary of Defense, who was then in 
a Republican administration. In 2006, we said: We are losing the war. 
In 2006, I had a spirited argument with then-General Dempsey--who was 
in charge of training the Iraqis and assured me everything was going 
fine--when I was showing him the facts when things were going to hell 
in a handbasket. So to somehow accuse me, Senator Graham, and others of 
making these comments about a feckless and without-foundation foreign 
policy that is allowing ISIS to succeed does not bear scrutiny.
  I agree with former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates when he says: 
``What it feels like to me is really what the President said last week, 
which was a lack of a strategy.'' There is a lack of a strategy.
  I want to tell my colleagues that we will be having hearings when we 
get through with this bill, and we will try to figure out what the 
Congress and the American people should know about what is happening in 
the world, not just in the Middle East.
  Facts are stubborn things. The fact is we can knock off an ISIS or Al 
Qaeda leader, and we can trumpet that as a great victory and thank God 
that it has happened. But to think that really has a significant, long-
term impact on the ability of ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other terrorist 
organizations to not reconstitute and continue their success, with 
occasional setbacks--which they are achieving and spreading that poison 
throughout the Middle East and the latest being Libya, aided and 
abetted in many cases by the Iranians--is obviously a fact that cannot 
be denied.
  For example USA Today reports: ``Death of al-Qaeda leader may benefit 
Islamic State.''

       The U.S. missile strike that killed al-Qaeda's No. 2 leader 
     is another in a string of devastating blows to the terrorist 
     group's old-guard leadership that might inadvertently help a 
     more brutal terror group: the Islamic State, analysts said.

  The Washington Post Editorial Board writes today: ``A dangerous 
mission in Libya requires a firm approach.''
  The Washington Post editorial board, not known as a rightwing 
periodical, writes:

       It's good those two militants have been taken off the 
     battlefield, but their elimination will not remedy the 
     growing crises in Libya and Yemen. In that respect, the 
     operations are another example of the limited benefits of 
     President Obama's narrow approach to counterterrorism.

  The New York Times reports today: ``As Vladimir Putin Talks More 
Missiles and Might, Cost Tells Another Story.''
  Reuters reports today: ``China gives more details on South China Sea 
facilities.''
  This is very disturbing. I say to my colleagues and all of us--
whether we are members of the Intelligence Committee or members of the 
Armed Services Committee--that we must address this issue of cyber 
security.
  My friends, we just went through a long back-and-forth debate and 
discussion over whether we should restrict the kinds of telephone 
information and whether it be shared or not shared and who should store 
it and all of that. Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reported on 
Friday: ``Hackers Likely Stole Security-Clearance Information During 
Breach of Government Agencies.''

       Hackers who raided the U.S. government's personnel office 
     gained access to secret background investigations conducted 
     on current and former employees, senior administration 
     officials said Friday--an ominous development in the recent 
     threat of federal data, one of the largest in history.

  The Washington Post editorial board writes today: ``A pathetic breach 
of responsibility on cybersecurity.''

       [T]he breach of Office of Personnel Management networks 
     this year . . . represents a failure of stewardship and a 
     serious external threat.
       After the OPM suffered a cyberintrusion in 2014, its 
     director, Katherine Archuleta, asked Congress in February for 
     $26 million in additional funding for cybersecurity. She said 
     the agency stores more personally identifiable information 
     than almost any other in the government, including banking 
     data for more than 2 million people and background 
     investigations for more than 30 million, among them 
     individuals being considered for military enlistment, federal 
     job appointments and employment by federal contractors. ``It 
     is imperative,'' Ms. Archuleta wrote, that . . . ``threats to 
     identity theft, financial espionage, etc., are real, dynamic 
     and must be averted.'' They were not averted.
       In April, the new breach was uncovered. Intruders had 
     stolen the names, Social Security numbers, pay history, 
     health records and other data of some 4.2 million current and 
     former federal workers.
       It seems to us that just slamming doors and building more 
     firewalls may be an insufficient response to an assault of 
     this magnitude. An essential aspect of deterrence is the 
     credible threat of retaliation.

  Why do I quote from that? It is because every time we ask a question 
as to what the policy is, whether it is strictly defensive against a 
cyber attack or whether offensive in order to prevent one, the policy 
has ``not been determined.''
  I say we have to address this issue. First of all, we have to have an 
administration policy or that policy somehow may be developed in the 
Congress, which is not the right way to do it, obviously.
  So I intend to work with Senator Burr, Senator Feinstein, Senator 
Reed, and others in holding hearings and figuring out what we need to 
do because this is a serious threat in many respects that we have faced 
in recent times.
  Finally, I wish to mention this: ``Former CIA Chief Says Government 
Data Breach Could Help China Recruit Spies.''
  Retired Gen. Michael Hayden, who once led the National Security 
Agency and later the Central Intelligence Agency, said the threat of 
millions of U.S. Government personnel records could allow China to 
recruit U.S. officials as spies.
  The general said:

       This is a tremendously big deal. My deepest emotion is 
     embarrassment.

  He said the personnel records were a ``legitimate foreign 
intelligence target.''
  He continued:

       To grab the equivalent in the Chinese system, I would not 
     have thought twice. I would

[[Page 9765]]

     not have asked permission . . . This is not ``shame on 
     China.'' This is ``shame on us'' for not protecting that kind 
     of information.

  So I urge my colleagues to understand that this new issue of cyber 
security is an area which the United States of America, in the view of 
many experts, does not have a significant advantage. It is an area 
where, in some respects, we may even be at a disadvantage, if we look 
at the extraordinary events that have taken place in the issue of cyber 
security. The latest information, of course, of 4 million people has to 
get our attention. It has to get the attention of the administration. 
We need to work together. I stand ready--and I know my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle do as well--to sit down and come up with 
some policies and then implement those policies into ways of combating 
this new form of warfare we call cyber.
  Again, I anticipate the comments of my friend from Illinois who will 
vigorously defend all of the research that is done in medical research. 
I wish to point out, again, that I am not in opposition to one single 
dime of any kind of medical research. I say it is coming out of the 
wrong place. We cannot make a logical argument that this belongs in the 
Department of Defense. Some of it does, and I have pointed that out. 
The majority of it belongs with other agencies.
  When we are facing sequestration and when we are cutting our national 
security to the bone, according to our military leaders who have said 
that continued sequestration puts the lives of the men and women who 
are serving in the military in danger, we cannot afford another $1 
billion to be spent on medical research. We want the money spent on 
medical research. We want it spent from the right place.
  I look forward to addressing the remaining amendments with my 
colleague and friend from Rhode Island. Hopefully, we can wrap up the 
Defense authorization bill sometime very soon. Then we can move on to 
conference and then bring the bill back after the conference to the 
floor of the Senate so we can carry out our first and most urgent 
responsibility; that is, the security of the Nation and men and women 
who defend it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me say at the outset that the Senator 
from Arizona, although we are of opposite political faith, has been my 
friend and colleague for a long time--since we first were elected 
together in a class in the House of Representatives. Our friendship and 
relationship has had its peaks and valleys. I hope we are at a peak at 
this moment. I will concede, before I say a word about his amendment, 
that I have no question in my mind, nor should anyone, about the 
commitment of the Senator from Arizona to the men and women who show 
extraordinary courage in battling for the United States of America in 
our military. The Senator's own personal life is a testament to his 
dedication to the U.S. military. I know he has brought that dedication 
to his service as the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and in 
bringing this authorization bill to the floor.
  Secondly, I don't question his commitment to medical research either. 
As he said, when we reach a certain stage in life, we may value it more 
because we realize our own vulnerabilities and the vulnerabilities of 
those we love. So what I am about to say is not a reflection of his 
commitment to the military nor his commitment to basic medical 
research, but I do question this amendment, which Senator McCain has 
said he will not offer but has filed, and I have been prepared for 
several days now to debate.
  Here is the question: Should we have within the Department of Defense 
a medical research capacity? I think yes, and I think for obvious 
reasons--because there are certain challenges to the men and women who 
serve in our military and to their families which relate to their 
military service.
  Secondly, if we are going to have such a military research program, 
should politicians and lobbyists, as the Senator said, be able to pick 
the diseases and pick the research? No, of course not. That is why this 
appropriations bill, which we will consider later this week, and this 
authorization bill address a situation where this is done by 
competitive grant. In other words, if we have researchers at some 
hospital who are researching a medical condition important to our 
military, we have to compete for it. It is not automatic. The decision 
is not made by Senators or Congressmen. It is made by medical 
professionals about which research makes a difference. So I think 
medical research is important to our military. Politicians shouldn't 
pick and choose those researchers and those research grants; it ought 
to be done by professionals.
  Third, this undertaking in the Department of Defense is substantial. 
It is about $1.8 billion for all of the different medical research. In 
perspective, the funding for the National Institutes of Health is about 
$30 billion. This is relatively small.
  Dr. Francis Collins heads up the NIH and I went to him and I said: 
Doctor, I am working on this defense medical research bill; I want to 
make sure we don't waste a penny. I don't want to duplicate anything 
you are doing at NIH.
  He said: Trust me, we will not. We coordinate everything we do. What 
they do is complementary to our work and what we do is complimentary to 
their work. We are not wasting a penny.
  So I think those three things are an important starting point in this 
debate. Medical research is important to national defense. Politicians 
have no role in choosing who is going to do the medical research. Also, 
whatever we do is going to be coordinated with medical research at 
leading agencies such as the National Institutes of Health.
  There are a lot of items on this list of research that I think very 
few people would ever quarrel with. Should we have a joint warfighter 
medical account in research? Should we have orthotics and prosthetics 
research for those who have lost a limb in military service? How about 
a military burn research unit, wound care research, military dental 
research--all of these topics relate to actual service.
  The only specifics which the Senator from Arizona raised, questioning 
why the Department of Defense would get involved in research, I would 
like to address. One item he specified is breast cancer. It is true the 
second largest undertaking for breast cancer research in America takes 
place at the Department of Defense. It started there--and I will be 
honest--I remember why. It started there because the funding through 
the National Institutes of Health was not reliable or predictable, and 
the Department of Defense made a commitment: We will make our 
commitment to breast cancer research.
  Is there a reason it would be in the Department of Defense? Even 
though the Senator from Arizona has raised questions about it, I wish 
to call his attention to the following: In 2013, researchers in the 
Department of Defense developed a vaccine that promises to protect 
women against a recurrence of breast cancer. Breast cancer is a disease 
diagnosed in female troops at a rate 20 percent to 40 percent higher 
than the civilian population. I am a liberal arts lawyer, so I don't 
know why. Can I figure out why more women in our military are diagnosed 
with breast cancer than women in our civilian population? I don't know 
the answer to that, but I want to know the answer to that. I want to 
know if there is something--anything--environmental or otherwise that 
our troops, and particularly women in the military, are exposed to that 
makes them more likely to come down with a diagnosis of breast cancer. 
Is that a legitimate question at the Department of Defense? It is 
obvious it is.
  How good are these researchers if we put several billion dollars into 
breast cancer research in the Department of Defense? The researchers 
recently completed a 10-year study of this vaccine known as E75, tested 
on more than 100 female soldiers recovering from breast cancer and they 
had a similar test group of civilian women. The research is happening 
within the Cancer Vaccine

[[Page 9766]]

Development Program, an Army research network studying vaccines' 
potential to fight breast, ovarian, uterine, and prostate cancers.
  Researchers indicated that in trials, the vaccine cut the risk in 
half that a woman's breast cancer will return--in half. Is it worth it? 
Is it worth it for us, through the Department of Defense, to put money 
into breast cancer research when female troops have a rate of breast 
cancer diagnosis 20 to 40 percent higher, when these researchers are 
finding a vaccine which in trials is cutting the recurrence of breast 
cancer in half compared to other populations? It seems very obvious to 
me.
  This is not the first time the defense researchers in breast cancer 
have done extraordinary things. In 1993, defense researchers developed 
Herceptin, now FDA approved, and one of the most widely used drugs to 
fight breast cancer--developed at the Department of Defense. Do we want 
to take the research decisions away from the researchers?
  The amendment which the Senator from Arizona offers would give the 
Secretary of Defense the last word as to whether we do this research. 
Now, I have known Secretaries of Defense, and they are talented 
individuals, but when it comes to making medical decisions about 
medical research, I don't think any of them are qualified to do that. 
Let's leave it in the hands of the professionals, not in the hands of 
politicians, not in the hands of political appointees, and not in the 
hands of bureaucrats.
  Let me also say this: When we look at the list of diseases that are 
studied at the Department of Defense, some of them may sound odd. Lou 
Gehrig's disease--ALS--why would we include that on a list for 
Department of Defense research? Let me explain. Men and women who have 
served in the U.S. military are 60 percent more likely than civilians 
to develop Lou Gehrig's disease--men and women who serve in the 
military. Gulf war veterans are twice as likely as the general 
population to develop Lou Gehrig's disease. Should we invest money for 
medical research in the Department of Defense for Lou Gehrig's disease? 
And then should we ask the basic question, Why? Why would it be more 
likely that one would develop Lou Gehrig's disease if one served in the 
U.S. military or if one was in the Gulf war? Those are legitimate 
medical questions that relate to our military. For the Senator to offer 
an amendment to take out any of that type of research, I think that is 
the wrong thing to do.
  We don't have to speak about traumatic brain injury. Everybody knows 
what has happened. We have seen the returning veterans--roadside 
bombs--what they have gone through. Between 48,000 and 169,000--
169,000--military servicemembers who have served and are serving in 
Iraq and in Afghanistan have developed post-traumatic epilepsy--head 
injuries. Post-traumatic epilepsy is a form of epilepsy resulting from 
traumatic brain injury. I put a provision in here for competitive 
grants on epilepsy and seizures for this reason: $7.5 million--we have 
169,000 who are dealing with these traumatic brain injuries and dealing 
with seizures and epilepsy afterward. Is this a legitimate area of 
Department of Defense medical research? Absolutely. We cannot ignore 
the reality of what our troops have gone through and what they need 
when they come home. To cut out this research would be a mistake.
  Let me also say, in 2013 alone, 100,000 servicemembers sought 
treatment for seizures at our veterans hospitals. It is a serious, 
serious problem.
  I could go through every single element I have here of medical 
research at the Department of Defense. I hope the examples I have given 
illustrate that men and women who serve our country face medical 
challenges which the ordinary civilian population may not face. I think 
we have a special obligation to them to engage in the research that can 
make their lives whole again and give them a chance to come back from 
our military and have a happy and full life, which we promised them. We 
said: If you will hold up your hand and give an oath to America that 
you will risk your life for our country, we will stand by you when you 
come home, and that includes more than a GI bill to go to school. It is 
more than a place to live. It is even more than basic medical care. It 
involves medical research.
  The final point I wish to make is this. This Senator will never 
apologize for trying to come up with more money for medical research. 
Never. Once every 67 seconds in America someone is diagnosed with 
Alzheimer's in America. When my staff told me that, I said you have to 
be wrong. They are not. It is once every 67 seconds. We spent $200 
billion in Medicare and Medicaid on Alzheimer's patients last year, not 
to mention the devastating costs to individual families who have 
someone they love suffering from this disease.
  We don't have an Alzheimer's provision. Well, we have a small 
Alzheimer's provision in this particular medical research bill. Am I 
going to stand here to apologize for putting $12 million in Alzheimer's 
research? I will tell you, if we could delay the onset of Alzheimer's 
by 1 month, by 2 months, by 6 months, God willing, if we could find a 
cure, we would more than pay for this medical research over and over 
and over again. We would spare people from the pain and suffering they 
go through with this disease and spare their families as well. When it 
comes to medical research, I will never stand and apologize for putting 
money into medical research. Every one of us has someone we love in our 
family facing a terrible, threatening, scary diagnosis and praying to 
God that there has been some area of research that may find a cure or a 
surgery. That is what this is about.
  I am glad the Senator has withdrawn his amendment. I repeat what I 
said at the outset. I will never ever question his commitment to our 
members in uniform and our veterans, nor will I question his commitment 
to medical research, but I will be sending him information that I think 
demonstrates what we are doing here has a direct impact on military 
families and military veterans.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
three pages of organizations that support my effort to stop this 
amendment.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   Groups Opposing the McCain Amendment To Prohibit Certain Types of 
                    Medical Research Programs at DOD

                            (June 16, 2015)


                Individual Letters/Grassroots activation

       The Arc; The Tuberous Sclerosis Alliance; National Breast 
     Cancer Coalition; The American Urological Association (AUA); 
     Alzheimer' s Association; Arthritis Foundation; Easter Seals.


      Defense Health Research Consortium Sign-On Letter/Grassroots

       ALS Association; American Association for Dental Research; 
     American Association of Clinical Urologists; American Cancer 
     Society; Cancer Action Network; American Congress of 
     Obstetricians and Gynecologists; American Dental Association; 
     American Gastroenterological Association; American Society 
     for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy; American Society for 
     Reproductive Medicine; American Urological Association; 
     Aplastic Anemia & MDS International Foundation; Arthritis 
     Foundation; Autism Speaks; Bladder Cancer Action Network; 
     Breast Cancer Fund.
       Children's Tumor Foundation; Colon Cancer Alliance; Crohn's 
     and Colitis Foundation of America; Cure HHT; Debbie's Dream 
     Foundation: Curing Stomach Cancer; Digestive Disease National 
     Coalition; Epilepsy Foundation; Fight Colorectal Cancer; 
     FORCE: Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered; Foundation to 
     Eradicate Duchenne; GBS/CIPD Foundation International; 
     International Myeloma Foundation; Kidney Cancer Association; 
     LAM Foundation; Littlest Tumor Foundation; Living Beyond 
     Breast Cancer; Lung Cancer Alliance.
       Lupus Research Institute; Lymphoma Research Foundation; 
     Malecare Cancer Support; Melanoma Research Foundation; Men's 
     Health Network; Muscular Dystrophy Association; National 
     Alliance of State Prostate Cancer Coalitions; National Autism 
     Association; National Multiple Sclerosis Society; 
     Neurofibromatosis Network; Ovarian Cancer National Alliance; 
     Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Parent Project Muscular 
     Dystrophy; Parkinson's Action Network; Phelan-McDermid 
     Syndrome Foundation.
       Preventing Colorectal Cancer; Prostate Cancer Foundation; 
     Prostate Health Education Network; Pulmonary Hypertension 
     Association; Research!America; Scleroderma Foundation; Sleep 
     Research Society; Society

[[Page 9767]]

     of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates; Society of 
     Gynecologic Oncology; Society for Women's Health Research; 
     Sturge-Weber Foundation; Susan G. Komen; Tuberous Sclerosis 
     Alliance; Us TOO International Prostate Cancer Education and 
     Support Network; Veterans for Common Sense; Veterans Health 
     Council; Vietnam Veterans of America; ZERO-The End of 
     Prostate Cancer.


                    Ovarian Cancer Community Letter

       Ovarian Cancer National Alliance; Ovarian Cancer Research 
     Fund; Foundation for Women's Cancer; #gyncsm Community; 
     Arkansas Ovarian Cancer Coalition; Bluegrass Ovarian Cancer 
     Support Inc.; Bright Pink; CancerDancer; Capital Ovarian 
     Cancer Organization, Inc.; Caring Together, Inc.; Celma 
     Mastry Ovarian Cancer Foundation; Colorado Ovarian Cancer 
     Alliance; Feel Teal Club; FORCE: Facing Our Risk of Cancer 
     Empowered; Georgia Ovarian Cancer Alliance.
       GRACE'S Gynecologic Cancer Support; Help Keep a Sister 
     Alive; HERA Women's Cancer Foundation; Hope for Heather; 
     Kaleidoscope of Hope of New Jersey; Life of Teal, Inc.; 
     Lilies of the Valley; Lydia's Legacy; Michigan Ovarian Cancer 
     Alliance; Minnesota Ovarian Cancer Alliance; NormaLeah 
     Ovarian Cancer Foundation; Oasis of Southern California; 
     Ovacome USA; Ovar'Coming Together; Ovarian & Breast Cancer 
     Alliance; Ovarian and Gynecologic Cancer Coalition/Rhonda's 
     Club; Ovarian Awareness of Kentucky.
       Ovarian Cancer 101; Ovarian Cancer Alliance of Arizona; 
     Ovarian Cancer Alliance of California; Ovarian Cancer 
     Alliance of Greater Cincinnati; Ovarian Cancer Alliance of 
     Ohio; Ovarian Cancer Alliance of Oregon and SW Washington; 
     Ovarian Cancer Alliance of San Diego; Ovarian Cancer 
     Coalition of California; Ovarian Cancer Education and 
     Research Network (OCERN); Ovarian Cancer Orange County 
     Alliance; Perspectives Association; Sandy Rollman Ovarian 
     Cancer Foundation; SHARE.
       Sherie Hildreth Ovarian Cancer Foundation; South Carolina 
     Ovarian Cancer Foundation; Sue DiNapoli Ovarian Cancer 
     Society; Susan Poorman Blackie Ovarian Cancer Foundation; 
     Teal Diva; Teal Tea Foundation; Teal Toes; Tell Every Amazing 
     Lady About Ovarian Cancer (T.E.A.L.); The Betty Allen Ovarian 
     Cancer Foundation; The Judith Liebenthal Robinson Ovarian 
     Cancer Foundation (Judy's Mission); The Rose Mary Flanagan 
     Ovarian Cancer Foundation; Turn the Towns Teal; Utah Ovarian 
     Cancer Alliance; Wisconsin Ovarian Cancer Alliance; WNY 
     Ovarian Cancer Project; Women's and Girls Cancer Alliance; 
     You'll Never Walk Alone.

  Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I, too, would like to speak on this 
National Defense Authorization Act and observe that we just, I think, 
had a very important exchange between the distinguished chairman of the 
Armed Services Committee and the Senator from Illinois. They disagree 
on an amendment that will actually not be voted on, but I was struck by 
the remarks of the Senator from Illinois and would observe to my 
colleagues that he has made a compelling case in favor of the bill, 
which I appreciate, and in favor of the proposition that the President 
of the United States should, in fact, sign this bill. So I appreciate 
my colleague from Illinois pointing that out, and I hope people at the 
other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, and in the Oval Office even, are 
listening to this stirring defense of the legislation from the Senator 
from Illinois.
  We are indeed moving in the right direction on this bill. I came to 
the floor last week to talk about the importance of this act. I 
reminded my colleagues at the time that this has always been a 
bipartisan matter. For some 53 years, this Senate, with people who have 
come long before me, has supported this particular bill on a bipartisan 
basis, and that is as it should be.
  I also disagreed strongly in my remarks last week with the remarks of 
the distinguished minority leader, the Senator from Nevada, who said 
that taking up this bill was a waste of time because the President had 
stated his intention to veto the bill. I made the point at that time 
that the success of our Nation's premier Defense bill can never be a 
waste of time. Taking care of the troops, taking care of the men and 
women who have stepped forward as volunteers, can never be considered a 
waste of time. I really think that more and more of our colleagues are 
coming around to that conclusion.
  We have made so much progress in the weeks we have been dealing with 
this. I would remind my colleagues that we started off in the Armed 
Services Committee with a complete partisan divide. It was troubling at 
the time, but we have recovered from that. When we began consideration 
of this bill in the Senate Armed Services Committee, we were told that 
every Republican would vote aye and every Democrat would vote no. That 
was definitely a concern to those who obviously know that this has to 
be bipartisan, that national security has to be something that has the 
support from both sides of the aisle.
  As we worked through the process, as the distinguished ranking member 
the Senator from Rhode Island worked with the chairman of the committee 
Senator McCain, we gained more and more support for this legislation in 
committee. At the end of the day, only four Members of the entire 
committee voted no. So the vote was 22 in favor and only 4 opposed in 
the committee--again, moving in the right direction.
  We got to the floor last week, and we heard the statement that this 
is a waste of time. I think we are moving away from that. Indeed, 
yesterday we voted on cloture on the bill. I have in my hand a very 
encouraging vote tally of 83 Senators in favor of this bill on this 
motion for cloture. There were 83 in favor and only 15 opposed.
  At the beginning of my brief remarks, I would just say it is 
encouraging to me that both at the committee level and also on the 
Senate floor, we are getting to where the Senate has always been on 
this bipartisan issue, and we certainly need to. We need to authorize 
the best tools available for our troops, the best training available 
for our troops, and our veterans, as the distinguished Senator from 
Illinois just pointed out, are in need of the support this bill gives 
them. In addition, our veterans are ready for much needed reforms to 
improve retirement and to improve military benefits.
  Of course, we live in a very unstable and insecure world. We need 
this bill to meet the threats that are out there. We wish they weren't 
there. I wish things were better in Iraq. I wish our hard-fought gains 
had not been tossed away by our precipitous withdrawal, but, in fact, 
the situation has worsened in Iraq, and we need this bill to protect 
our interests there. We face old Cold War tensions with the reasserting 
of an aggressive Russia, in the form of President Vladimir Putin, 
increasingly intent on restoring the Soviet Empire. We face other 
realities: cyber terrorism, the nuclear ambitions of Iran, which we 
heard so much about recently, and we need to reaffirm that the United 
States has a capable and strong U.S. defense.
  Let me for a brief few moments come home to my home State of 
Mississippi and say why people in my State feel so strongly about this. 
Of course, we have military bases from north to south in Mississippi. 
Our own Mississippians, as in all of our States, have stepped forward 
and are volunteering and serving capably. We also manufacture so many 
things in my State of Mississippi that are important for national 
security. We make unmanned aerial vehicles in Mississippi. Some of the 
finest ships in the world are made on the gulf coast of Mississippi. 
Helicopters, radars, and other electronic war technology, all of these 
are manufactured in my home State. So for people in Mississippi, I 
think the talk of this bill--these weeks on the floor--being a waste of 
time does not ring true.
  A few examples: In my hometown of Tupelo, MS, this bill recognizes 
the importance of the Army's Apache helicopters and the Tupelo Army 
Aviation Support Facility. At Columbus Air Force Base, where over 2,000 
personnel serve, this bill and the Defense appropriations bill, which 
the Senator from Maryland may speak about in a few moments--these 
pieces of legislation allow our student pilots to have adequate 
training and adequate flying training hours.
  In Starkville, MS, the authorization and appropriations bills are 
integral to completing the Army Reserve Center for equipping and 
training military personnel. Along the gulf coast, these Defense 
bills--the authorization and the appropriations bills--would support a 
new Army National Guard aviation

[[Page 9768]]

depot at the Gulfport-Biloxi Airport, as well as the continued mission 
of over 11,000 Americans who work at Keesler Air Force Base. I am proud 
of these, and I am proud of what they do for our overall national 
defense of the United States.
  Mississippi is just one of many States to take part in this. Simply 
put, the future of our defense should not be put in jeopardy because of 
disagreements about unrealistic domestic funding issues. We can get to 
those issues, but defending the United States of America is something 
only the Federal Government can do. We can't devolve national defense 
down to the States. We have to do it in this building, in this body, on 
this floor of the Senate. Besides, it is well worth saying and 
reminding my colleagues that this bill gives the President every penny 
he has requested for national defense. It meets the $612 billion 
requested by President Obama in his budget. So it really should not be 
partisan at all.
  I will go back to what the Senator from Illinois said. He made a 
stirring defense of this legislation, I think one that should be 
listened to by the President of the United States. He should listen to 
the fact that we had an 83-to-15 vote on cloture, and we had a 22-to-4 
vote in the Appropriations Committee.
  We have had a few partisan flareups along the course of this 
legislation, but I think as we get to the end of the day, I am more and 
more encouraged about the prospect of this bill. I think we can pass it 
tomorrow with an overwhelming vote, which shows we are voting for it 
not as Republicans, not as Democrats but as Americans, because we want 
to defend the vital national interests of the United States of America.
  Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much.
  Mr. President, standing here listening to the debate and discussion 
by colleagues on both sides of the aisle really makes the point that 
many of us are saying. We need a new budget agreement. We have people--
I think we all agree on both sides of the aisle that we need to defend 
America. There is no doubt about that. In order to do that, we need to 
look at national security both in its funding for the Department of 
Defense, but we also need to be looking at what are the components to 
national security. Many of the key agencies that are not in the 
Department of Defense are also important to the national security.
  Yet, at the same time, we have defense with this budget gimmick, and 
that is what it is. It is a budget gimmick to avoid the caps we have on 
spending on both defense and discretionary spending. What this bill is, 
is a gimmick to have the money through something called OCO, which was 
meant to be a specific expense for overseas contingency funds. It was 
meant to deal with specific wars. Now it has been plussed-up by several 
millions and millions of dollars to avoid the budget caps.
  This isn't a budget debate here. I will be saying more about it on 
the floor. But I just want to say to my colleagues, think about 
national security. Yes, we do need a strong national defense and we do 
need to support our troops and we do need to support our military 
families. We do need to support our troops. We do need to support our 
military families. That is what I am going to be elaborating on in a 
minute. But we also have to look at the other aspects.
  First of all, you need a State Department. Part of national security 
is diplomacy. You need a State Department.
  Second, in the State Department, you need Embassy security. If you 
don't want another Benghazi, you must put money in the Federal budget 
to make sure we have Embassy security. You have to fund the State 
Department. That is in discretionary funding.
  You do not like the cyber attacks? We are going to have meetings, and 
we are going to hold hearings, and--hoorah--all of the things we should 
have been doing 3 to 5 years ago but were stopped on this Senate floor 
because of concerns of the chamber of commerce that we would 
overregulate.
  We have a Department of Homeland Security. It needs to be funded. It 
is in discretionary spending.
  You want to have a cyber security workforce? Yes. They need to be 
trained at our great colleges and universities. We need a Department of 
Education with the Pell Grants and so on to be able to help our people 
get the jobs for the 21st century so they can do the type of work we 
are talking about we need them to do here.
  I could go through other agencies.
  I am not here to stand up for government agencies. I am here to stand 
up for America. I am here to say: Yes, we do need national security. We 
need to fund the Department of Defense, but we need to fund those other 
agencies and programs that are integral to national security. That is 
why I think we need a new budget agreement along the lines of Ryan-
Murray, and we need to end the sequester.
  I hope--and I call upon leadership on both sides of the aisle but 
particularly on the other side of the aisle: Let's get to it now, 
sooner rather than later.
  I am the vice chair of the Appropriations Committee and am working 
very closely with my esteemed colleague, the senior Senator from 
Mississippi, on trying to bring bills to the floor, but we simply have 
to come up with a new agreement.
  So we will go through a lot of parliamentary motions and commotion, 
but I am not so sure we are going to get the locomotion we need to look 
out for America. We cannot let our military be hollowed out. We cannot 
let our country be hollowed out. We need to really move ahead with this 
new agreement, and a perfect example is why I come to the floor.
  All through this debate, I have heard that the most important tool to 
a strong military is the military themselves, the military and their 
families. Consistent through all, from both sides of the aisle, is that 
we must look out for our troops. Well, I could not agree with that 
more. Yet, what is it that we know in this bill, tucked away, is really 
an erosion of one of the key earned benefits our military and their 
families and the retirees have--commissaries. Commissaries.
  Commissaries have been around since the 19th century. They have been 
around since 1826. Military families have been able to shop at networks 
of stores that provide modestly priced goods--primarily groceries--to 
military families and to retirees. There are 246 of them, many in our 
own country, many overseas, many in our country where they are only 
place our military can go. There are those in some other countries 
where they are not even looked upon and welcomed in some of these 
countries, even though we are there.
  So what is in this bill? Two things: One, let's privatize the 
commissaries; the other is, let's cut their budget by $322 million.
  I am for saving money by eliminating Pentagon waste, but I will tell 
you that no money is wasted at a commissary. In fact, just the opposite 
happens. The commissaries are the most popular earned benefit the 
military has.
  Also, this is not Senator Barb talking; this is coming from the 
military themselves. If you listen to the National Military and 
Veterans Alliance, they say this: Commissary and exchanges are a vital 
part of pay and compensation. The military community greatly value 
these benefits. The proposed cuts would dismantle the commissary 
benefit relied upon by shortening hours and raising prices.
  When we look at commissaries, we know that people shop there, they 
save money, and at the same time they are also a major source of 
employment.
  What I want to do is work with my colleague, the Senator from 
Oklahoma, a member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Jim Inhofe. 
It is his amendment. We want to prevent the commissary privatization 
pilot program. I also have an additional amendment. I would like to 
restore the $322 million in cuts to commissaries. We have an offset to 
be able to pay for it as well. The benefits of the commissaries are 
significant. That is why I

[[Page 9769]]

want these two amendments to be offered. They feed our troops, they 
help military families stretch their budgets, and they provide jobs to 
military spouses and to military children old enough to work and 
military retirees.
  The military families tell me they get significant savings--sometimes 
as much as 30 percent--on their bill. For a family of four, that could 
be $4,500 per year. As I said, 60 percent of the commissary workers are 
spouses or retirees at these commissaries.
  DOD says we want commissaries to be more self-sustaining. They have 
proposed cuts of more than $1 billion through 2020. They are talking 
about, in fiscal year 2016, cutting $322 million. Next year, they want 
to cut $1 billion. And they also want to look at how to privatize.
  Joining with my colleague from Oklahoma, the distinguished senior 
Senator, Jim Inhofe--he has legislation to deal with the privatization. 
In this bill that is pending, they implement this commissary pilot 
plan. Well, we have heard that before. I think it is a plane without a 
pilot. But we do not even know if it is a good option. It was made up 
by Pentagon bean counters, Pentagon bean slicers who were told: Find 
savings. So they went after the commissaries.
  Well, the Senator from Oklahoma and I want to require the DOD and GAO 
to study the impact of privatization before a plan can be implemented. 
In other words, before you privatize, why don't you study the impact? 
The Senator from Oklahoma is proposing that this study be due in 
September so that we would be able to act appropriately in our 
appropriations. I support him in his amendment.
  I also am looking for support in the cuts to commissaries. Right now, 
proposed in both the authorization and then they tried it in our 
appropriations bill, is a cut in the appropriations by $322 million. 
This means hours would be cut, so instead of operating 7 days a week, 
they would be open 5. It would raise prices in many instances by as 
much as 25 percent. In far-flung places such as Hawaii or Alaska, 
prices could even go up by as much as 50 percent because of the formula 
being used.
  This is just not right. Of all of the places that we could save 
money, let's not go after commissaries. Let's not go after 
commissaries. They help military families and retirees stretch their 
budgets. For many of our young military, particularly the enlisted, the 
commissary is the place where they learn how to stretch their dollar. 
At the same time, it provides employment to military spouses, in some 
instances military children, and also to retirees.
  What is the problem here? We cannot get votes on our amendments. We 
cannot get a vote on the privatization issue proposed by the Senator 
from Oklahoma, and I cannot get a vote on my amendment to restore the 
$322 million.
  I know the leadership is now meeting on how to wrap up this bill. 
Well, I don't want to wrap up this bill. I think that what we need to 
do is to be able to vote on these two amendments.
  We have had all kinds of amendments. We had one on the sage-grouse. I 
know the sage-grouse is a protected species. As an appropriator, I had 
to deal with this as a rider on the appropriations bills. So I am not 
against the sage-grouse. I am not against talking about the sage-
grouse. But why, with all of the problems facing America, do we need a 
sage-grouse amendment on defense when I cannot get a vote on protecting 
commissaries, protecting an earned benefit of our military, helping 
them stretch their dollar, and making sure some of them have a chance 
to work on a military base? Why can't I get an amendment? Why can't the 
distinguished Senator from Oklahoma get a vote on his amendment that 
would call for a halt to the privatization pilot until we get a study 
from GAO on impact? So you can stand up for the sage-grouse, but I will 
tell you that I am standing up for military families.
  I urge the leadership at the highest level and the leadership moving 
this authorization to give Inhofe-Mikulski privatization of 
commissaries a vote and give me a chance to offer my amendment. Let the 
Senate decide. Let's not have me stopped and stymied because of 
parliamentary procedure.
  You might say--and to everybody listening--well, Barbara, you are 
pretty outspoken. You are not shy. Why can't you offer your amendment?
  Under the rules of the body we are now operating under, I have to get 
consent. That means all 99 other Senators should not object to me 
offering an amendment. Well, I am stuck. So what I need is for the 
leadership to give me the consent to at least have my amendment 
discussed and debated in the light of day. I want to hear their 
justification why they have to go after commissaries. Let's stand 
united. Let's get a new budget agreement. Let me offer our amendment.
  We should not be fighting with each other over these things. Instead 
of going after commissaries, let's go after the bad guys in the world 
and let's do it in a united way.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.


                    3rd Anniversary of DACA Program

  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise today to mark the third anniversary 
of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, which was this 
week. Since 2012, the program the President implemented, which has been 
known as DACA, has offered temporary relief from deportation to 
immigrants who arrived in the United States as young children. It has 
helped almost 665,000 young people since June of 2012, including more 
than 10,000 in Virginia. The DACA Program announced by the President 
has allowed young people to contribute to our communities, live without 
constant fear of deportation, keep families together, and provide 
economic and educational opportunities for these young recipients.
  I want to thank President Obama and the administration because DACA 
has provided relief to thousands of youngsters who seek only to pursue 
opportunity, provide for their families, and contribute to the only 
place they have ever known as home--the United States.
  Immigrants are not the only ones who benefit. DACA enforces the 
universal reputation of this country that we are proud of, that we 
value our immigrant heritage and we embrace and celebrate their 
contributions to American history, industry, and culture. This is a 
value which is something we feel very deeply in Virginia. We feel it 
more every day.
  When I was born in 1958, 1 out of 100 Virginians had been born in 
another country. Today, in 2015, one out of nine Virginians was born in 
another country. That period coincides with the moving of the Virginia 
economy from bottom quarter per capita income to top quarter. 
Immigration and the contributions of immigrants to our State have been 
tremendously positive.
  More than 10,000 youngsters in Virginia have benefited by DACA. We 
are 13th among all States. Let me just tell you two quick stories.
  Hareth Andrade exemplifies what DACA recipients, if given the 
opportunity, can give back to their communities. Hareth arrived in the 
United States from Bolivia, brought by adults. She arrived without her 
parents. She excelled in school. She attended Washington-Lee High 
School right here in Arlington. She took advanced placement and 
international baccalaureate classes.
  During a campus visit as she graduated, she learned for the first 
time that her undocumented status would be a barrier to earning a 
college education. But instead of giving up on her dream, she organized 
with other students to form DREAMers of Virginia, an organization that 
has led efforts to provide students access to instate tuition and 
college admission for kids just like her.
  After the President announced the DACA Program in June of 2012, 
Hareth became a recipient, and she has since transferred from community 
college to Trinity Washington University, where she expects to graduate 
with a degree in international affairs next year.
  Another student, Jung Bin Cho, also has seen doors open to him 
because of DACA, doors to educational opportunities such as the fine 
institution of Virginia Tech, where he now attends. Cho

[[Page 9770]]

arrived in the United States with his parents from South Korea when he 
was 7 years old. He attended elementary school and graduated high 
school in Springfield, VA, where he played on the defensive line for 
the football team.
  His dream--a lot of Virginians have this dream--was attending 
Virginia Tech, and he gained admission to the school. But at the same 
time he first realized that his undocumented status eliminated him from 
instate tuition or any financial aid. Because he couldn't afford it, he 
attended community college and worked two jobs to support himself. But 
following DACA and the decision last year to grant instate tuition to 
young Virginians--a decision for which I applaud our Governor and 
general assembly--Cho reapplied to Virginia Tech, won admission, and he 
now is able to attend Virginia Tech, where he will pursue a degree in 
business and hopefully participate in this great expansion of the 
Virginia economy that so many of our immigrants have been proud to 
lead.
  For young people such as Hareth and Cho, DACA makes sense. Both came 
here as young children. They didn't come here on their open volition; 
they were brought here. They only know Virginia as home, and they seek 
to study, work, and build a life in this country. As proud Virginians, 
they want to return the opportunities afforded to them by using their 
talents to improve their communities and making it a better place for 
everybody.
  In addition to the humanitarian aspect, as you heard, these talented 
students are the kinds of people who accelerate our economy. DACA is 
good for our economy, too. So I strongly support its continuation, but 
I also wish to encourage my colleagues--and I think we all agree, 
Democrat, Republican, Independent--we all agree this program is best 
not by Executive order but by legislation.
  We are now almost exactly 2 years from the date when the Senate 
passed comprehensive immigration reform on this floor in June of 2013. 
For 2 years, after a strong bipartisan effort, we have waited for 
action--any action--by the House, not just taking up our bill but doing 
their own bill and then, in a conference, finding a compromise, which 
we can do.
  It is time that the House act. It is time that the Senate and the 
House sit down together and do comprehensive immigration reform. We can 
give DREAMers and millions of other families who continue to live in 
the shadows an earned pathway to citizenship. It is time to pass that 
reform. It is in the best traditions of our Nation and in the best 
value traditions of my Commonwealth that we do so.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The majority whip.


                       Defense Appropriations Act

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, after the Senate concludes its work on the 
Defense authorization bill tomorrow--a very important part of our 
responsibility--we will then move to consider the Defense 
Appropriations Act. This actually is the legislation that will pay the 
bills for the Department of Defense and make sure our men and women in 
uniform get the resources they need in order to do their job, not to 
mention their pay, which is why it is so disturbing to see the 
leadership of our minority in the Senate announce in the papers here in 
Washington that they are going to begin what they call a filibuster 
summer. In other words, they are going to use the power they have as 
the minority to block important funding bills, beginning with the bill 
that pays for our national security, in what can only be called a cheap 
political stunt.
  Why they have decided to do that on this important Defense 
appropriations bill is, frankly, beyond me. I think I understand what 
their general point is, which is they don't think the Federal 
Government spends enough money, and so they want to spend more money, 
and they have no concern whatsoever for the fact that under this 
administration, we have raised the national debt by trillions of 
dollars, making sure that my generation will not end up having to pay 
that money back, but the next generation will unless we meet our 
responsibilities.
  So for them to pull this kind of political stunt and say ``You know 
what, we are not spending enough money, we are not incurring enough 
debt, and so we are going to force a filibuster on the Defense 
appropriations bill'' in order to extort more spending, more debt, more 
irresponsibility--the bill our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle are pledging to filibuster is not controversial in itself because 
it would, as I said, provide for our military and would help our troops 
maintain their status as the greatest military in the world. It also 
includes simple initiatives that make a lot of sense and serve our 
troops well, such as giving the men and women who wear the uniform a 
modest pay raise. Yet the Democratic leader still plans to block this 
legislation and stymie this Chamber's efforts to fund our troops.
  We saw a little glimpse of this last week when Senate Democrats, with 
the exception of seven, blocked us moving an amendment to deal with 
cyber security. We saw that their timing could not have been worse 
because, of course, then it was announced that millions of records at 
the Office of Personnel Management had been hacked by the Chinese 
Government and some of the most sensitive security clearance background 
records were now in their hands--a dramatic act of counterintelligence 
and espionage.
  Then, when we offered an amendment to the Defense authorization bill 
that would deal with cyber security, would allow more information 
sharing, would allow lawsuit protection for those who shared 
information in order to protect the privacy and the information of 
American citizens, it was blocked by all but seven Democrats on the 
other side.
  So while I have been by and large encouraged by this new Congress and 
what we have been able to accomplish together in a bipartisan way, I 
think there are some very troubling signs on the horizon, starting with 
this ill-considered idea of filibuster summer, throwing a temper 
tantrum until you can get more money that we don't have to spend on 
your pet projects. But I think their decision to hold Defense 
appropriations bill hostage is just inexcusable. This is the essential 
funding for our military, for national security.
  I should point out, as my colleagues across the aisle use this bill 
as leverage to spend more taxpayer dollars on things like the IRS, not 
long ago they vocally opposed the obstructionist tactics they are now 
employing. Here are the words of the Democratic leader, Senator Harry 
Reid, in 2013. He said: ``It's time to get back to setting fiscal 
policy through the regular order . . . rather than through hostage 
taking.'' I agreed with his comments then, and I wish he would act 
consistently with those words today.
  The American people aren't served well by these kinds of manufactured 
crises and threats to cut off funding for our troops. And that is why 
the new Republican Senate, under Majority Leader McConnell, has 
prioritized and restored the kind of regular order that Senator Reid 
talked about in 2013. Finally, the Congress and the Senate are actually 
getting back to work on a bipartisan basis.
  As I have said, we have had some signs of progress. I know Majority 
Leader McConnell likes to quote Woody Hayes from Ohio State when he 
talks about the nature of the progress we have made. He said: ``Three 
yards and a cloud of dust.'' I like to think of it more as a baseball 
analogy of singles and an occasional double. But you get the basic 
point. We are actually beginning to make some progress, and that is why 
I find so troubling these signs of filibuster summer and this 
announcement by our Democratic friends.
  We have done our best after this last election, after the American 
people entrusted us with the majority of the House and the Senate, to 
deliver on our promises. We have held more rollcall votes on amendments 
in the past 5 months than the minority leader, as the Democratic 
leader, allowed in the entire year when they were under control--more 
rollcall votes on amendments in the last 5 months than Democrats 
allowed in an entire year when they were in control.

[[Page 9771]]

  The truth is that our Democratic colleagues, I think, like it better, 
too, because not only was the minority--Republicans--shut out when 
Senator Reid was majority leader, he shut out Members of his own party, 
the majority party. Now, how you explain that back home, I am not too 
clear.
  But it is not only Senator Reid who has made this commitment to 
restoring regular order and eschewing this idea of hostage taking, 
which now they are talking about doing.
  Here are the comments of one other member of their Senate leadership, 
the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray. In 2013, she said the 
American people had no patience for ``politicians holding the economy 
and the Federal Government hostage to extract concessions or score 
political points.''
  I agree with her, and I agreed with Senator Reid in 2013, but these 
are the exact same Democratic leaders who are now today threatening the 
same sort of hostage taking they condemned in 2013.
  Well, I like to point out that the legislation we are considering, 
the Defense appropriations bill, is not a partisan bill. In fact, it 
was voted out of committee last week by a vote of 27 to 3. This is not 
a partisan bill, so why they should decide to hold this hostage is 
beyond me.
  All but three Democrats supported the defense spending measure in 
committee last week. But, unfortunately--and defying logic--some 
Democrats have publicly admitted to supporting the text of the bill 
while vowing to do everything they could to keep it from advancing on 
the floor of the Senate.
  Just one example is the junior Senator from Connecticut, who hailed 
the bill's passage--this is the Defense appropriations bill in 
committee--through the committee as a ``victory for Connecticut''--I am 
sure there was a press release to go along with that back home--only to 
go on and say he would go along with the ill-fated strategy to vote no 
to actually block the bill from being considered on the floor.
  The American people are very smart, and they can identify hypocrisy 
when they see it. When a Senator says, ``I am going to vote for the 
bill in committee, but I am going to vote against it on the floor 
because that is what my leadership tells me I have to do in order to 
extract more spending and impose more debt on the American people in 
future generations,'' the American people get it once it is pointed out 
to them.
  So this is all about gamesmanship. This is not about responsible 
legislating, and it is not why the American people sent us here.
  I can only hope, being the optimist that I am, that our colleagues on 
the other side will reconsider this stated strategy of filibuster 
summer. What a mistake that is. What an unsustainable position when 
they have to go home over the Fourth of July and tell the veterans, 
tell the Active-Duty military in their State: Yes, I voted to kill the 
bill that would pay your salary and provide you the tools you need in 
order to succeed in your commitment to keeping America safe.
  I just don't know how you sustain that position.
  So I would encourage our colleagues from across the aisle to remember 
that filibuster summer is a bad idea and that it is not good for the 
American people. It irresponsibly signals to our troops that some 
Members of the Senate are not fully behind them.
  So let's continue to working productively. We have done it on hard 
pieces of legislation, most recently on the trade legislation we passed 
out of the Senate with a strong bipartisan vote. Let's continue to work 
together productively in a way that serves the American people and not 
resort to the sort of political maneuvers that I don't think reflect 
well on us and on the Senate as an institution but, more fundamentally, 
undermine the men and women who wear the uniform of the U.S. military.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Third Anniversary of DACA Program

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise to acknowledge the third 
anniversary of the Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals--the DACA 
Program--as many of my colleagues have over the past few days.
  The DACA Program was created because our government faced an 
impractical mandate to deport hundreds of thousands of undocumented 
children who pose no risk to society. Congress, thus far, has been 
unable to solve the problem. Despite the very good bipartisan efforts 
that occurred in this body back in 2013, we have been unable to pass 
any meaningful immigration reform. Why? Well, a group from the far 
right in the House of Representatives oppose immigration reform at all 
costs and have sort of tied Speaker Boehner into knots so he can't 
bring anything to the floor.
  So 3 years ago, with no choice, President Obama moved forward on his 
own to shield children who were brought to this country through no 
fault of their own. They were brought by their parents when they were 
very young, most of them; children who have lived here for many years 
and know no other country as their own, children who are in our school 
system and dreaming of getting a college degree in America.
  The President created DACA, a temporary program modeled on the DREAM 
Act, which is a vital component of comprehensive immigration reform. As 
I said, we couldn't get immigration reform, unfortunately. That would 
have been the best way to go, and I am still hopeful that will happen 
at some point in time. But doing what the President did was the humane 
and practical thing to do because the House couldn't do anything. What 
choice was there? Leave these kids here through no fault of their own 
in total limbo? That was not the right thing to do. So we hope this is 
a policy Congress will implement into law at some point, but right now, 
of course, as I mentioned, the House is hog-tied.
  In the 3 short years since its inception, the DACA Program has 
deferred deportations for over one-half million young DREAMers. In New 
York, nearly 34,000 have been approved for DACA. Of those 34,000, there 
is a girl named Kirssy Martinez from New York City. Kirssy came to our 
country from the Dominican Republic in 2002, and she attended high 
school in New York City.
  After graduating, Kirssy lived in the shadows, working small jobs 
here and there as a waitress, a babysitter, whatever she could do to 
make ends meet. She was a good student coming out of high school. She 
even had a few scholarship offers but couldn't attend college because 
she didn't have a green card and, moreover, she didn't have the means 
to afford a college education.
  In 2012, Kirssy was one of the first to sign up for DACA. With her 
new temporary legal status, she was able to enroll in Bronx Community 
College. She got loans to pay for her first semester. She had to drop 
out once the loans ran out. She scraped together more funding from 
TheDream.US scholarship that provides tuition assistance to DREAMers at 
CUNY schools.
  Now Kirssy is 26 years old. I met her at her graduation at Bronx 
Community College. She was covaledictorian of her class with a perfect 
4.0 average.
  These are the kinds of kids we are talking about. They want to be 
Americans. They want to get out of the shadows. They want to live 
productive, full lives. They do not want a handout. They want to be 
able to be on their own. That is what Kirssy did. I met her, and I was 
so proud of her.
  Kirssy has realized a DREAMers dream because of both her hard work 
and the President's DACA Program, which helped bring her out of the 
shadows. There are many more in New York and around the country just 
like her.
  The sad truth is that instead of harnessing the potential and the 
contributions these young people could make, instead of welcoming them 
as full-fledged members of our society, the Republican majority in the 
House of Representatives voted to repeal the DACA

[[Page 9772]]

Program. With these votes, House Republicans have made it clear they 
want to deport these DREAMers.
  Many of the DREAMers have a sibling who may have been born in the 
United States and is a citizen of the United States or a parent who may 
have a green card. House Republicans have no qualms about tearing these 
families apart. They have no qualms what it could cost us as a nation 
to lose these young people.
  If you look at the workforce in America, it is different than Europe 
in that we do have enough young people who want to work to help support 
those who are in retirement or on disability--but not if our House 
Republicans have their way.
  In my home State of New York, DREAMers like Kirssy are doing amazing 
things. They are studying medicine, they are working at startup tech 
companies and more. If Republicans in the House have their way, these 
talented people would be putting their skills to use to compete against 
us rather than working to make America stronger.
  Like the millions who came here before them--like the ancestors of 
our Presiding Officer and my ancestors--they came here because they 
want to be Americans, not because they want to get a benefit, not 
because they want to be a leach on society. They want to be a full-
fledged, productive member of society. Somehow these folks in the 
House--and I don't even know if they know who these kids are--want to 
stop that from happening.
  As we recognize this anniversary, we should remember the real human 
stories behind the DACA Program and think how our Nation could be made 
better by sensible immigration reform now.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


             National Alzheimer's and Brain Awareness Month

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise to ask my colleagues to join me in 
recognizing June as National Alzheimer's and Brain Awareness Month. 
Every 67 seconds someone in our country develops Alzheimer's disease. 
It is the sixth leading cause of death in the United States. Yet it is 
the only disease in the top 10 that cannot yet be prevented, cured or 
slowed.
  Of the 5.3 million Americans with Alzheimer's disease, 5.1 million 
are 65 and older, accounting for 96 percent of the diagnosed 
population. By 2050, the number of people 65 and older with Alzheimer's 
disease may nearly triple from 5.1 million to an estimated 13.8 million 
Americans. The disease will take the lives of an estimated 700,000 
seniors in the United States this year, and that number is rapidly 
rising.
  While deaths from other major causes have decreased in this country, 
deaths from Alzheimer's disease have increased significantly. Between 
2000 and 2013, deaths attributed to Alzheimer's disease increased 71 
percent, while deaths attributed to heart disease, the No. 1 cause of 
death in the United States, decreased by 14 percent.
  This devastating disease is also one of our country's most expensive 
diseases. Nearly one in every five Medicare dollars is spent on people 
with Alzheimer's and other dementias. Unless something is done, by 2050 
it will be $1 out of every $3. We cannot afford to overlook Alzheimer's 
disease. Both the human cost and the cost to our health care system are 
simply too great. We must invest more in research to develop treatments 
to prevent or delay the progression of Alzheimer's disease and 
ultimately to find a cure.
  Of all the statistics and data regarding Alzheimer's disease, perhaps 
the most upsetting is the immense gap between the amount we spend on 
Alzheimer's research and the cost of caring for those with Alzheimer's 
disease.
  In 2014, the total cost of Alzheimer's was $214 billion, including 
$150 billion to Medicare and Medicaid. During that same year, the 
National Institutes of Health invested only one-quarter of 1 percent of 
that amount--$566 million--in Alzheimer's research. This year, cancer 
research will be allocated an estimated $5.4 billion in Federal funds 
and heart disease will get $1.2 billion, while Alzheimer's and other 
dementias will receive a fraction of that, at $586 million. Simply put, 
it is imperative we provide NIH with robust and sustained funding, 
which will allow it to support Alzheimer's research that is so 
desperately needed.
  Let me make it clear. I strongly support the research dollars going 
into cancer and would like to see more funds put into it. I strongly 
support the amount of funds we are putting into heart disease and would 
like to see more funds put in. I know there is bipartisan support in 
this Congress to increase the pie that NIH has--the funds NIH has--
because we understand it advances the humanitarian need in our country 
to find the answers to cures for diseases but also creates good jobs. 
We need to dramatically increase the amount of resources that we make 
available for Alzheimer's research.
  We must also support innovative, evidence-based models to address the 
needs of those currently living with Alzheimer's disease and their 
family caregivers. I am proud to tell you about the Maximizing 
Independence at Home--or MIND at Home Program--developed at Johns 
Hopkins in my home State of Maryland.
  In the MIND at Home Program, an interdisciplinary team provides home-
based assessments, care coordination and support to individuals with 
Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, allowing them to remain in 
their homes longer, improving their quality of life, and supporting 
their family caregivers.
  During an 18-month pilot project, the MIND at Home Program helped 
participants stay safely in their homes for an average of 9\1/2\ months 
longer than would have been otherwise possible, while also improving 
their quality of life.
  We have an opportunity to improve the lives of millions of Americans 
suffering from Alzheimer's, and the lives of their family members, by 
building on the success of programs such as MIND at Home. This June, in 
honor of National Alzheimer's and Brain Awareness Month, let us pledge 
to provide robust, sustained funding for NIH, so it can support much 
needed research on this devastating disease, and let us pledge to 
support innovative programs such as MIND at Home to improve the quality 
of life of those currently living with Alzheimer's and their family 
caregivers.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
up to 15 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, today is my 103rd time coming to the 
floor to ask my colleagues to wake up to the urgent problem of climate 
change.
  Pretty much everyone is telling us climate change is a problem. First 
of all, there are the scientists, virtually every major scientific 
society and agency. Then there are our military and national security 
leaders, leading American companies, doctors, and faith leaders who are 
all telling us this is a problem and asking us to wake up.
  The American people understand climate change is real. Nearly 80 
percent think that doing nothing to reduce future warming will cause a 
very serious or somewhat serious problem for the United States. Two-
thirds of Americans, including half of Republicans, favor government 
action to reduce global warming, and two-thirds, including half of 
Republicans, would be more likely to vote for a candidate who campaigns 
on fighting climate change.
  I have visited with voters in early primary States, with people in 
Iowa, in New Hampshire, and in South Carolina--business owners, 
teachers, community leaders, and elected officials. There will be no 
avoiding this issue in the 2016 election.
  So we might expect Republican Presidential hopefuls to present to the 
voters their plans for climate action. We

[[Page 9773]]

might expect the Republican candidates to address this problem in an 
honest and straightforward manner. But we would be wrong.
  Republican Presidential candidates who venerate our military turn 
deaf when that military warns of climate change's national security 
dangers. Republican Presidential candidates who are conspicuously 
religious ignore Pope Francis and other religious leaders when they 
warn of the fundamental indecency of not addressing climate change. 
Republican Presidential candidates who seek to represent our corporate 
elite ignore those corporations' own business case for addressing 
climate change. And Republican candidates who root boisterously for 
their home State university sport teams ignore the climate change 
warnings of scientists and researchers at those very same universities. 
The Republican Presidential primary is a festival of climate denial, 
with candidates competing to tie themselves in knots to avoid 
acknowledging carbon pollution.
  A few even subscribe to the big hoax theory. One candidate wrote in 
his book that climate science is based on ``doctored data'' and that 
``it's all one contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own 
weight.'' Another even claims to know who is behind the hoax. He said: 
``The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in 
order to make U.S. manufacturing noncompetitive.'' Wow, he got to the 
bottom of that. ``This very expensive global warming''--I will delete 
the word since this is the Senate floor--``has got to stop. Our planet 
is freezing,'' the same candidate wrote last winter.
  Then there is the ``who knows'' caucus. One Republican hopeful seems 
to think we don't really know one way or the other. ``We may be 
warming, we may be cooling,'' he says. Another has said that people who 
are concerned about climate change ``don't like to look at the actual 
facts and data.'' Now there is a really perverse piece of rhetoric, 
because what do the actual facts and data show? The data show that the 
amount of carbon in the Earth's atmosphere has risen dramatically, 
since the onset of the industrial revolution just over a century ago, 
to the highest levels mankind has ever experienced and the highest 
levels Earth has experienced in at least 800,000 years. It is a fact of 
basic science that carbon dioxide traps heat and alters the climate. 
That has been known since the days of President Abraham Lincoln. The 
data match and show decades of increase in global temperature. The 
scientists we pay to know these things say that warming of the climate 
is ``unequivocal.'' The ocean is warming. Sea levels are rising. Ocean 
water is growing more acidic. We measure all of that. It is not theory. 
Those are the facts.
  At least two candidates, by the way, have compared those who accept 
the established science of climate change to people who believe the 
Earth is flat. That is particularly rich when we consider that NASA 
scientists are among the strongest and most articulate proponents of 
the science of climate change. Do we really think that NASA scientists 
believe the world is flat? Do we think the scientists who launched a 
rover through space, landed it safely on the surface of Mars, and are 
now driving it around are confused about the circular nature of the 
Earth?
  Then there is the ``always changing'' crowd. One Republican 
Presidential hopeful says:

       [T]he climate is changing. I don't think the science is 
     clear on what percentage is manmade. . . . And for the people 
     to say the science is decided on this is just really 
     arrogant.

  Actually, it is just really factual.
  ``[T]here's never been a moment where the climate is not changing,'' 
another candidate observed. ``The question is: What percent of that is 
. . . due to human activity?''
  Well, the links of climate change to human activity are something 
that scientists have studied extraordinarily closely. According to the 
leading scientific body on climate change, the best estimate is that 
pretty much all of the recent rise was due to human activity. The lead 
scientific organization says greenhouse gas emissions, along with human 
activity, ``are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the 
observed warming since the mid-20th century.'' And, by the way, 
``extremely likely'' is defined in that document as 95 to 100 percent 
certainty.
  So this gaggle of Republican Presidential hopefuls is willing to take 
the ``worse than 1 in 20'' bet that human activity is not the dominant 
cause of recent climate change. Or, as another Republican candidate put 
it, ``the conclusions you make from that are not conclusive''--whatever 
that means.
  Then, of course, there is this: ``I'm not a scientist.'' At least 
three of the declared Republican candidates have used that line. 
Imagine if Congress answered other policy questions that way. What is 
your position on abortion? Oh, I am not a gynecologist. What should we 
do about health care? Oh, I am not a medical doctor.
  We are not expected to be experts. We are expected to listen to the 
experts and to make conscientious, informed, and prudent decisions--
and, oh, are we failing that test.
  There are even Republican candidates for President who in this 
American century would abdicate American leadership on the climate 
crisis. ``Is there anything the United States can do about it?'' one of 
the Republican candidates asked. ``Clearly, no''--reducing greenhouse 
gas emissions ``will have zero impact,'' he said, on climate change. 
Another candidate said: ``A single nation acting alone can make no 
difference at all.'' I would love to hear Winston Churchill and 
Franklin Roosevelt conversing about whether America can make a 
difference.
  Last week the senior Senator from Oklahoma, whose skepticism about 
climate change is well documented, was the keynote speaker at the 
climate denial conference of a creepy outfit called the Heartland 
Institute. Here is what he told them--and by the way, when I say 
``creepy,'' they are the group that put up a billboard comparing 
climate scientists to the Unabomber--pretty responsible stuff. ``If you 
look at the Republican candidates,'' he assured the attendees at that 
forum, ``they're all denying this stuff, with the exception of Lindsey 
Graham. . . . They're all with the people in this room''--quite a room 
to want to be with.
  I am glad that our colleague from South Carolina, Senator Graham, has 
called for reducing carbon pollution with smart probusiness policies. 
He has lit a path for other Republican colleagues to follow, and he is 
not the only one on this path. Prominent conservative thinkers and 
former administration officials from Nixon, Reagan, and both Bush 
administrations have voiced support for putting a fee on carbon 
emissions. Prominent conservatives and libertarians think that we can 
put a price on carbon, relieve taxes on profits and work, and come out 
economically for the better. Even setting aside the environmental and 
climate benefit, just economically, that is a win.
  So I offered a carbon fee bill last week with our colleague Senator 
Schatz, what one conservative called an ``olive limb''--doing better 
than just an olive branch--to conservatives who are ready to address 
this problem.
  So Lindsey Graham has articulated one path. There is a different, 
darker path. It is the path of obedience to fossil fuel interests. The 
fossil fuel companies, their super PAC allies, and their front groups 
swing a heavy financial club, and they want to herd Republican 
candidates down the darker path. Americans for Prosperity, part of the 
Koch brothers-backed political machine, plans on spending $900 million 
in the 2016 election cycle--$900 million. Its president, Tim Phillips, 
threatened publicly that any Republican candidate in the 2016 
Presidential campaign who supported climate action ``would be at a 
severe disadvantage in the Republican nomination process.'' Gee, what 
might candidates conclude from that? And that is just one part of the 
fossil fuel political machine.
  So I ask myself: Why are there all of those preposterous statements 
by the Republican Presidential candidates? The only conclusion I can 
reach is to signal that very obedience. We are now at the stage in the 
Republican Presidential primary where candidates caper

[[Page 9774]]

and grovel before the fossil fuel industry's political machine, hoping 
they will be the chosen beneficiaries of fossil fuel election spending. 
Remember that there is $900 million from just one group. It looks like 
that earns the industry a lot of groveling and capering.
  Eventually, the Republican Party is going to have to find its true 
voice on climate change. It can't continue indefinitely as the 
political arm of the fossil fuel industry in an environment in which 80 
percent of Americans want climate action and a majority of young 
Republicans think that climate denial is ignorant, out of touch or 
crazy, according to the words they selected in the poll. Ultimately, 
the Republican Party is going to have to find its true voice. Until 
then, America is presented the unseemly spectacle of Republican 
Presidential candidates fighting to have the best position on climate 
change that money can buy.
  I yield the floor.
  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. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                      Nuclear Agreement With Iran

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor again to speak about 
Iran as we count down to the deadline for an agreement about Iran's 
illusiveness when it comes to the military dimensions of their program 
and how they respond to that in any agreement. The truth, as it has 
always been, is illusive, and it remains so.
  Yesterday, Secretary of State Kerry said--in response to a question 
about whether Iran's atomic work by the Iranian military would have to 
be resolved before sanctions would be lifted--that we are not fixated 
on Iran specifically accounting for what they did at one point or 
another. What we are concerned about is going forward.
  Given Iran's history of deception, I am very concerned about what 
they did ``at one point or another.''
  In an Iran task force memo on verification, it says that ``until Iran 
provides a full accounting of its past and present possible military 
dimension activities, the international community cannot have 
confidence that it knows either how far Iran is along the path to 
nuclear weapons or that Iran's nuclear weapons activities have 
effectively ceased.''
  David Albright--who has appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee and whom I called many times when I was the chairman and 
still do--is the founder of the Institute for Science and International 
Security. Mr. Albright said the Secretary's remarks were ``very 
worrisome.'' He said that they reflect what he sees as the 
administration's long practice of offering concessions to Iran. He 
said: ``Whenever confronted with Iranian intransigence. . . . It's 
going to be hard for a lot of people to support this deal if they give 
in on past military dimensions.''
  He also said:

       Addressing the International Atomic Energy Administration's 
     concerns about the military dimensions of Iran's nuclear 
     programs is fundamental to any long-term agreement. . . . An 
     agreement that sidesteps the military issues would risk being 
     unverifiable. Moreover, the world would not be so concerned 
     if Iran had never conducted weaponization activities aimed at 
     building a nuclear weapon.

  Speaking of the possible military dimensions of Iran's program, the 
former Deputy Director General of the International Atomic Energy 
Administration, Olli Heinonen, said:

       Without addressing those questions . . . the IAEA 
     Secretariat will not be able to come to a conclusion that all 
     nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful use, which is 
     essential in building confidence of the international 
     community over Iran's nuclear program. A comprehensive deal--
     that would include uranium enrichment--can only be reached if 
     uncertainties over Iran's military nuclear capability are 
     credibly addressed. . . . That should be an unambiguous 
     condition to achieving a final accord that is meaningful in 
     safeguards terms.

  Now, this is the former Deputy Director General of the International 
Atomic Energy Administration, whom we hear overwhelmingly under the 
proposed agreements saying this is the entity that will be responsible 
for the verification of any potential agreement.
  Well, his experience says that without understanding the 
weaponization elements of Iran's program, you can't fully be able to do 
that. He also warned that outsiders really can have no idea where and 
how fast the mullahs could build a nuclear weapon unless they know what 
Iranian engineers have done in the past.
  As to Secretary Kerry's assertion yesterday that we know what their 
program was--and he said it, as I read it, almost as unequivocal that 
we know what their program was. Well, I get concerned when I read the 
former Director of the CIA, Gen. Michael Hayden, who has said not 
addressing the possible military dimensions ``creates an increased 
burden on verification if I don't have high confidence in where the 
Iranians actually are, not such as fissile material development, but in 
their weaponization program. . . . we do have intelligence estimates, 
but they remain estimates.''
  They remain estimates.

       [F]or a country that says ``that's not our objective,'' 
     they refuse to come clean on their past. . . . How can we 
     know their intent, how can we know their capacity for 
     breakout or sneak out, without high confidence in where it is 
     they are right now?

  He also said in reference to Secretary Kerry's remarks:

       I'd like to see the DNI or any intelligence office repeat 
     that word for me. They won't. What he is saying is that we 
     don't care how far they've gotten with weaponization. We're 
     betting the farm on our ability to limit the production of 
     fissile material. He's pretending we have perfect knowledge 
     about something that was an incredibly tough intelligence 
     target while I was director and I see nothing that has made 
     it any easier.

  This is the former Director of the CIA, supposedly where we have all 
of this knowledge. This is his expression of what we have or don't 
have. Clearly, basically what he is saying is we have estimates, but 
they are just that, estimates.
  I am very concerned when the Secretary of State says that we are 
prepared to ease sanctions on Iran without fully understanding how far 
Iran progressed on its secret nuclear weapons program. It has been a 
fundamental question from the very beginning of these negotiations. It 
was made very clear in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee and other venues where Members asked about would Iran have to 
come clean on its possible dimensions of its militarization of its 
weapons program and would that have to be upfront. That was always an 
understanding, almost like a red line. Now that seems to be erased.
  It has been a fundamental question to which we need--not just want--a 
full and verifiable answer. This is not just about Iran making some 
admission. That is beyond. I think the world has acted the way it has 
acted with the sanctions from the U.N. Security Council and elsewhere 
because it knows Iran was pursuing weaponization of its nuclear 
program. It is just that we don't know how far they got in that 
process, and how far they got in that process is important to know as 
we are determining the other elements of any agreement, particularly 
with breakout. That has been the case as long as I have been working to 
prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state.
  Now, the Secretary of State says we are prepared to ease economic 
sanctions without a full and comprehensive answer to that question. He 
says Iran's past suspected nuclear activities need to be ``addressed.'' 
That is all, simply addressed--not specifically answered but only 
addressed. According to the New York Times article that I read, he made 
it clear that sanctions could be lifted--they could be lifted--before 
definitively resolving concerns of the International Atomic Energy 
Agency about Iran's past nuclear research and the extent of the 
military dimensions of that research.
  That is simply unacceptable, in my view, and it should be 
unacceptable to everyone in this Chamber.
  You know, the New York Times article goes on to say:


[[Page 9775]]

       Those favoring full disclosure of what diplomats have 
     delicately called the ``possible military dimensions'' of 
     Iranian nuclear research say that the West will never know 
     how long it would take Iran to manufacture a weapon--if it 
     ever developed or obtained bomb-grade uranium or plutonium--
     unless there is a full picture of its success in suspected 
     experiments to design the detonation systems for a weapon and 
     learn how to shrink it to fit atop a missile.

  That is exactly what I believe, and I came to the floor recently and 
had a map that described where the possible reach of Iran's present 
missile technology exists, and it is most of the gulf, into parts of 
Eastern Europe, Turkey, Egypt, and of course our ally, the State of 
Israel. So its reach today, under missile capacity--and something they 
continue to perfect--is incredibly significant.
  For a decade since obtaining data from an Iranian scientist from a 
laptop that was spirited out of the country, the CIA and Israel have 
devoted enormous energy to understanding the scope and success of the 
program.

       Failing to require disclosure, they argue, would also 
     undercut the atomic agency--a quiet signal to other countries 
     that they, too, could be given a pass.

  That is quoted from the Times article. Those are exactly my 
continuing concerns, and I think they are concerns of a very large 
universe of people who have been following these developments. I need 
to know the answer to those questions before I can support any lifting 
of sanctions against Iran that I have fought for, authored, and that 
this Senate has unanimously supported.
  So I am going to conclude, but I will be back to point out the 
unfolding problems with dealing with the mullahs in Tehran and what it 
means to the national security of the United States and to our allies 
in the Middle East and to the stability of the region and to what I am 
increasingly concerned is the moving of goal posts that move 
increasingly in the direction of Iran.
  I remember when we started off this conversation--these 
negotiations--Iraq's plutonium reactor, we were told they will 
dismantle it or we will destroy it. Well, this agreement allows Iraq to 
continue--reconfigured somewhat, but it can be reconfigured back. The 
President himself has said there was no need for Fordow, built deeply 
under a mountain, an enrichment facility.
  Now, if you want a peaceful nuclear civilian program, you don't go 
deep into a mountain to ultimately do enrichment, but that is what the 
Iranians did. The President himself said that was an unnecessary 
facility. We were told it was going to be closed. Well, it is going to 
stay open--reconfigured to produce less uranium and supposedly with 
safeguards, but it is going to stay open. The point is, with regard to 
the weaponization elements, Iran has for a decade--a decade--worked 
against the U.N. Security Council resolution that said it had to come 
clean on this question. So for a decade they haven't done it.
  When you have the leverage, why wouldn't you seek to achieve it now, 
so you know and can calculate the rest of your agreement? That, too, 
seems to be lost in the shifting sands of these negotiations. This is 
of deep concern to me, and I can only hope we will end up at a better 
deal than that which is being unfolded as we speak.
  Every time I listen to another element of what I thought was a 
critical element of any deal, that critical element seems to be oddly 
moving in the direction of what Iran wants it to be and not what we in 
the international community should want to see. That is my concern, and 
I will continue to come to the floor to report on it.
  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. SCHATZ. 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. SCHATZ. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business 
for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, the facts are undeniable. Climate change 
is real. It is caused by humans. It is happening now and it is 
solvable.
  One solution to climate change is putting a fair price on carbon 
pollution. Last week, Senator Whitehouse and I introduced a bill, S. 
1548, to do just that and to return all of the revenue to American 
families and businesses.
  I thank Senator Whitehouse for his leadership on this bill, but we 
want a Republican dance partner. We want conservative leadership on 
this great challenge of our time.
  Climate change increases the severity and frequency of storms and 
natural disasters. This is not only a humanitarian problem but also an 
economic issue. A heat wave in Texas in 2011, for example, caused $5 
billion in livestock and crop losses. Climate change makes events like 
this 20 times more likely to occur today than in the 1960s. Climate 
change's impact on the economy is particularly damaging because it 
creates so much uncertainty.
  There is a role for the government here. The administration is doing 
everything it can to reduce carbon pollution within the statutory 
constraints of the Clean Air Act, but it will not get us to the 
reductions we need. Congress needs to step in and legislate to get the 
reductions we need to make sure we are protecting low-income and 
working families and growing our economy.
  Regulations like the Clean Power Plan and market mechanisms such as a 
price on carbon are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they work 
together. They are mutually reinforcing. If powerplants reduce 
emissions under the Clean Power Plan, they will pay less in carbon 
fees. Market mechanisms for reducing pollution work.
  In the 1990s, President George H.W. Bush used cap and trade to reduce 
emissions from sulfur dioxide in order to combat acid rain. The program 
was successful in slashing emissions, which not only meant healthier 
lakes and waterways but healthier communities. The health benefits for 
humans linked to lower sulfur dioxide emissions were estimated at $50 
billion annually by 2010.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SCHATZ. Yes, I will be pleased to yield to the Senator from 
California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator, and I welcome his remarks. We are in 
a space in the Senate where there are some people who still say climate 
change isn't happening, even though, as the Senator and I know, 98, 99 
percent of the scientists in this country say it is obvious.
  I am also so pleased my friend is here today because he is talking 
about cap and trade, and that leads us into my question. I will ask two 
questions.
  One question I have for the Senator from Hawaii is how he feels about 
the Pope and the encyclical, where the Pope is basically stating it the 
way it is, and it needs to be heard by everyone. I wonder how my friend 
responded to that. Also, I wanted to make sure my friend knew in 
California we have a cap-and-trade program, and I thought it was so 
good that you reminded people that this was a creation by a Republican 
President dealing with acid rain and it was so successful and the 
public health benefits so outweighed the costs.
  So I wanted to make sure my friend was aware we had this cap-and-
trade system in California that is working well. We balanced our budget 
in large part because of this, and businesses like it. They liked the 
certainty of it. Also, will the Senator respond to the issue of the 
Pope entering into this debate.
  Mr. SCHATZ. I thank the Senator from California.
  Through the Chair, I will answer the first question.
  First, when it comes to the Pope's encyclical, it seems to me that he 
is displaying the moral leadership that is going to be necessary in all 
sectors--in the private sector, in the public sector, among Democrats, 
Republicans, Independents. People across the planet are starting to 
understand the magnitude of the climate challenge.

[[Page 9776]]

  One of the reasons I have been coming to the floor so frequently is 
not to lambaste the other party, but rather to encourage that there be 
conservative leadership in this space. There is certainly progressive 
leadership in this space. There is increasingly corporate leadership. 
There is leadership in the Department of Defense, in the scientific 
community. But what we really need is for conservatives to step up and 
to acknowledge the reality of this problem and propose their own set of 
solutions.
  They may disagree with a carbon fee or a cap-and-trade program or the 
President's Clean Power Plan. But let's have that debate out in the 
open. Come down and beat up on our bill or beat up on the President's 
proposal. That is fine. But we need to have this great debate in this 
great Chamber because this is one of the greatest challenges of our 
time.
  To the Senator's second question, talking a little bit about how cap 
and trade has worked in California but also how market-based mechanisms 
have worked all over North America and across the planet, the Senator 
is right. There is a cap-and-trade program in California, and the 
economy has continued to improve. The State's fiscal situation has 
continued to improve.
  We have the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative. We have tripled clean 
energy in a very short period of time, all while unemployment has gone 
down. In 2008, British Columbia became the first and only jurisdiction 
in North America with an economy-wide price on carbon emissions. Seven 
years later, evidence shows that even going it alone, British Columbia 
was able to reduce petroleum consumption more than the rest of Canada 
and without any negative impact on growth.
  So the Senator from California is right. We can do this and grow our 
economy. But we are going to need bipartisan leadership. Market 
mechanisms are one of the most straightforward solutions to climate 
change. They have growing support across the ideological spectrum. The 
carbon fee in our bill is predictable. It can start right away. There 
is no new government program to administer or to run and no need for 
complex financial transactions or trading.
  It is simple and relatively easy to administer, and it gets the 
reductions that we need: an estimated 40 percent of greenhouse gas 
emissions by the year 2030. The bill, importantly, is revenue neutral. 
The original carbon fee legislation poured back the new revenue into a 
bunch of goodies that I liked in terms of dealing with the challenge of 
climate change. But we understand that if we are going to get 
Republican support, this needs to be revenue neutral or close to it, 
and we need to use the revenue to ameliorate the challenges that are 
going to occur as we transition into a clean energy economy.
  It also lowers corporate tax rates, which will make our Tax Code more 
competitive with other countries. But reducing carbon emissions and 
growing our economy ought to go hand in hand. This bill lays out a 
clear framework for how to accomplish that. Climate change demands 
leadership from both progressives and conservatives. A price on carbon 
is a market-based solution that can appeal to people of multiple 
ideologies but share a common goal of solving one of the great 
challenges of our time.
  In the tradition of Margaret Thatcher and Barry Goldwater, we need 
conservatives to embrace their own market-based solutions to our 
climate challenge. There is nothing conservative about ignoring the 
collective knowledge of the scientific establishment. There is nothing 
conservative about ignoring the warnings from our Department of 
Defense. There is nothing conservative about shirking our
responsibility for global leadership. There is nothing conservative 
about conducting a dangerous experiment on the only planet that we 
have.
  So we have no desire for this to continue to be an issue where only 
one party is on the floor talking about it. Let's have the argument 
about what the right solution set ought to be. But let's have it out in 
the open, and let's have it together.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                             EPA Water Rule

  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, the EPA recently released its final water 
rule, claiming much greater power for the administration to oversee the 
land use decisions of homeowners, small businesses, and family farms 
throughout our country. This mandate is full of problems, and the 
American people are being sold a false bill of goods.
  Just look at the potential impact to my home State of Arkansas. As 
you can see, the entire State will come under this jurisdiction. The 
red on this map, compiled by Agriculture's Waters of the United States 
Mapping Initiative, highlights the extent to which this EPA rule would 
impact Arkansas. As you can see, the Obama administration wants to give 
bureaucrats in Washington control of almost all of the water in 
Arkansas. They are deceiving the American people in order to justify 
this power grab. First, they imply that unless Washington is in 
control, water is simply not protected.
  This is not true. Clean water protection involves our local 
communities. Private land owners, conservation districts, States, and 
local communities protect non-Federal waters all of the time. Second, 
the Agency claims this rule is designed to protect drinking water.
  Again, this is an attempt to scare the American people. It is 
dishonest.
  We all want to protect our water resources, and clean drinking water 
is certainly a priority. I support the Safe Drinking Water Act. For 
more than 40 years the Safe Drinking Water Act has encouraged Federal-
State cooperation in improving safe drinking water. That work has made 
tremendous progress, which we can all be proud of. This law has been 
strongly supported by both Republicans and Democrats. It has been 
reauthorized and extended by Republican-controlled Congresses, and it 
will continue to improve safe drinking water whether or not this 
Federal power grab continues.
  This administration says one thing about safe drinking water, and 
then it does another. For example, in 2013 and 2014, the Obama 
administration cut funding for the Safe Drinking Water Grant Program. 
This program, which is a Federal-State partnership, does far more to 
protect safe drinking water than anything in the EPA's new power grab.
  Third, we hear rhetoric about rivers catching on fire and toxic 
pollution. Once again, this is an attempt to scare the American people. 
Major rivers will continue to receive Federal and State protection just 
as they have for decades. Isolated non-navigable waters will continue 
to be protected by State and local efforts as they are now. Let's not 
forget that farmers and landowners care about clean water.
  Northeast Arkansas farmer Joe Christian told the Jonesboro Sun after 
the EPA finalized the rule: I am not going to do something detrimental 
to the land I work and live on.
  There is no greater environmentalist than a farmer. For the past 
year, Arkansas farmers and ranchers have shared with me their concerns 
over this EPA overreach. I want to share some of the comments that I 
recently received. Fred in Trumann wrote:

       Like every other person in America, I favor clean water. 
     However, there appears to be a grab for power or control 
     related to water. I fail to see how a low spot in a field or 
     yard or ditch that I create on my own land should be 
     included. We are being over-regulated by Washington--please 
     continue to limit intrusion into our lives where none is 
     needed.

  Rodney in Lonsdale sent me an email saying:

       The EPA doesn't need to be monitoring my pond and streams, 
     telling me what to do or how to use them. This is an 
     overreach.

  These frustrations are the result of an agency that often abuses its 
authority, creating unnecessary and costly mandates. It is not just 
Arkansans. Across the country, people are sounding the alarm on this 
power grab.
  ``Extreme'' and ``unlawful'' are two words the American Farm Bureau 
used to describe the rule. An analysis of the finalized rule by the 
organization determined that the ambiguity of the

[[Page 9777]]

rule will give the Agency ``broad discretion to identify waters and to 
limit the scope of most of the exclusions.'' The good news is that we 
have a bipartisan agreement that this EPA rule is a problem.
  After EPA finalized this rule, the Wall Street Journal published an 
editorial calling this rule by EPA an ``amphibious attack'' and urged 
Congress to overturn the rule and force ``Members to show whose side 
they're on--the average landowners or the Washington water police.''
  That is why I joined the Senate's efforts to protect property owners 
and keep Washington's hands off of private lands. The Federal Water 
Quality Protection Act safeguards Americans from this overreach. It 
sends EPA back to the drawing board to craft a proposal that encourages 
true cooperation. It will keep the hands of Washington's politicians 
out of the decisions that have been made in the States and local 
communities for generations.
  Under this modest, bipartisan legislation, the EPA will be able to 
protect Federal waters without expanding its power. I appreciate 
Senator Barrasso, the bill's author, for his continued leadership in 
holding EPA accountable. Last week, my colleagues and I who serve on 
the Environment and Public Works Committee moved this legislation 
forward. This is a step in the right direction to protecting the rights 
of landowners while protecting our Nation's waters.
  I look forward to supporting this commonsense legislation on the 
Senate floor and encouraging my colleagues to do the same. Congress 
must build on the progress that we have made toward better water 
quality. We can do this best by protecting the role of States, local 
communities, and private citizens to be a part of the process.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                     Transition to Independence Act

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a bill I will be 
introducing, the Transition to Independence Act.
  The bill is a Medicaid demonstration program that will give 
incentives to States to achieve more integrated employment for people 
with disabilities.
  The Federal Government funds a hodge podge of programs that provide 
supports for people with disabilities.
  However, the largest of all programs providing supports for people 
with disabilities, the Medicaid program, could do much more to drive 
better outcomes.
  The Medicaid program provides critical supports for people with 
disabilities including primary health care and home and community-based 
care.
  This bill is unique in that it uses the resources of the Medicaid 
program to drive better outcomes for people with disabilities.
  Our public policy encourages people with disabilities to participate 
in society, to live in the community and to have integrated employment.
  But what does the government do to encourage that outcome?
  What does government do to insure that all people with disabilities 
have the opportunity to achieve their maximum participation?
  I would argue, not enough.
  The program that is the largest funder of supports for people with 
disabilities is Medicaid.
  Unfortunately, Medicaid funding to States is in no way tied to 
producing better outcomes.
  Now I know we cannot just snap our fingers and make it so.
  The Federal Government cannot just order the States to do better.
  The Federal Government needs to provide States the right incentives 
to achieve better outcomes.
  That is the goal of the Transition to Independence Act.
  This bill creates a 5-year, 10-state Medicaid demonstration program.
  States participating in the demonstration program will receive 
Medicaid bonus payments for meeting achievement targets for individual 
integrated employment.
  Simply stated, as States move people with disabilities to integrated 
settings, they get more money.
  States can also achieve additional funding for agreeing to give up 
new congregate placements.
  States can achieve additional funding for ending vocation 
rehabilitation for congregate settings.
  States can achieve additional funding for taking actions that will 
grow the workforce serving people with disabilities.
  Finally, States can achieve additional funding for taking steps to 
improve interagency collaboration.
  Too much of disability policy occurs in isolated silos where people 
in charge of policy don't talk to each other.
  There is health services, long-term supports, housing, education and 
workforce training, and transportation available to people with 
disabilities all run by people who aren't working together to maximize 
the outcome for the individual.
  Now it is legitimate to ask: why can't States take these policy steps 
today?
  They can take some actions of course.
  But they have a significant financial incentive not to take these 
actions.
  It will take a significant investment of resources for a State to 
achieve better outcomes for people with disabilities.
  If a State wants to improve outcomes, it needs to invest in providing 
the supports necessary to help people with disabilities participate 
more fully in the community.
  In the end, moving people with disabilities from more expensive 
congregate settings to more self-sufficient, integrated settings is 
better for the individual and ultimately better for the taxpayer 
because it will require less intensive, less expensive supports.
  But under Medicaid, when a State makes that investment, it has to 
give half or more of the savings achieved back to the Federal 
Government.
  Again, that is a serious disincentive for the States.
  Basically, the bonuses I am proposing in this bill allow the States 
to keep the savings they achieve.
  It is my intention that this bill be essentially budget neutral to 
the Federal taxpayer while giving States a real incentive to achieve 
better outcomes.
  We can build better supports for people with disabilities.
  The term often used is a ``lifespan benefit.''
  I believe that creation of a lifespan benefit, where people with 
disabilities receive coordinated, multidisciplinary support to achieve 
the maximum functional outcomes possible begins with the Medicaid 
program.
  It is my intention to prove that through this demonstration bill.
  I have talked to scores of people with disabilities and their 
families and they want to work a real job that pays a fair wage.
  Agencies that provide these services are committed to helping them 
find real jobs.
  It is time to change Medicaid incentives to encourage and reward 
that.
  Last week, a constituent of mine from Dubuque, Rose Carroll, visited 
my office with the Autistic Self Advocacy Network.
  Rose is currently in college working on a degree in math.
  All Rose wants is to know that she will have the supports available 
to her when she needs them so that she can do all she can to 
participate in her community.
  That is exactly what this bill intends to do.
  It will demonstrate that States, when given the right incentives, 
will do all they can to make sure Rose has those supports.
  Back home, my friend Chris Sparks is the Executive Director of 
Exceptional Persons Incorporated in Waterloo, IA.
  Chris and his staff go out into the community every day to provide 
direct support services for people with disabilities.
  These workers provide a necessary service in order to assist people 
with significant intellectual and developmental disabilities to have 
jobs in their community.
  But it is a struggle every day for Chris to find workers, to train 
them and retain them.
  This bill will provide States the incentives to grow the workforce to 
make it easier for people like Chris

[[Page 9778]]

Sparks to go out and provide services that allow individuals with 
disabilities to achieve independence.
  The bill I introduce today has the support of the American 
Association of People with Disabilities, the American Association on 
Health and Disability, Autism Speaks, the Autistic Self Advocacy 
Network, the Muscular Dystrophy Association, the National Adult Day 
Services Association, the National Association of State Directors of 
Developmental Disabilities Services, the National Association of States 
United for Aging and Disabilities, and the National Down Syndrome 
Congress.
  The bill also has the support of the American Network of Community 
Options and Resources including Iowa members: Christian Opportunity 
Center, Hope Haven, Opportunity Village, Hills & Dales, New Hope 
Village, and Exceptional Persons Incorporated.
  In their advisory role to Congress, the National Council on 
Disability provided technical assistance on the bill.
  This is an opportunity for us to say that outcomes matter, for us to 
further a conversation about setting the goal of maximum participation 
and using all our tools to meet it.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues and others to move this 
legislation forward in the months to come.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott). The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, are we in the parliamentary procedure to 
proceed to speak?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.


                  Papal Encyclical on the Environment

  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, tomorrow, Pope Francis will release a 
papal encyclical on the environment. It is basically a letter to all 
Catholics about high-priority issues, and he has chosen the 
environment.
  Some might think the Pope is straying outside of his expertise by 
discussing environmental issues and climate change as the expected 
encyclical is revealed, but the Pope actually has more of a scientific 
background than many Members of Congress because the Pope was trained 
as a chemist before he entered seminary. And, as we have seen over the 
course of his first 2 years as head of the Catholic Church, Pope 
Francis is particularly committed to addressing issues that affect the 
poor.
  According to recent news reports, the Pope's encyclical will 
emphasize the moral imperative that we as a global community face in 
addressing climate change. He calls every person across all faiths to 
come together to address the global deterioration of our common home. 
This stewardship case is a shared common truth for all people--the 
faith community and all.
  Many of us have spoken on this floor about climate change and the 
resulting sea level rise. The President has spoken about it numerous 
times recently, and he visited the Florida Everglades in my State 
recently and made a similar case for the urgent need to take action on 
climate change and sea level rise.
  Taking care of treasured places such as the Everglades isn't just 
about conservation, it is about survival.
  Millions of people in South Florida depend on the Everglades as the 
source, as that water flows south from upper central Florida and 
recharges the aquifers. It is a vital source of drinking water. It is a 
vital source no one can live without. But drinking water wells in South 
Florida are already being compromised by saltwater intrusion through 
the porous limestone foundation of our State.
  We had a hearing of our commerce committee in Miami Beach, which is 
ground zero. A NASA scientist testified that over the last 40 years, 
measurements--not forecasts, not projections; measurements--over the 
last 40 years, the sea level has risen 8 inches in South Florida.
  What happens when that rises--and, of course, that starts to inundate 
the porous limestone, which holds the freshwater, which supports the 
foundation of the peninsula of Florida. You can't do as the Dutch have 
done--build a dike around it--because the water will seep right 
underneath your dike into the porous limestone.
  So we need to take a hard look at what can be done--and do it soon--
to get ready for the impacts of climate change in the future, to stop 
pumping carbon dioxide, which is the main greenhouse gas, into the 
atmosphere.
  There are a lot of good ideas out there that could protect 
communities from climate change, and there are a lot of good ideas out 
there that could help folks pay their bills. For example, my colleague 
from Rhode Island, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, has proposed a plan to 
place a carbon fee or a dollar fee per ton of carbon emissions and then 
use that money to lower everybody's tax rate, both corporate and 
individual. Let it be revenue neutral. It is a fee on carbon, and the 
marketplace will then kick in, making it less desirable to put those 
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, particularly carbon dioxide.
  In the last Congress, Senator Boxer proposed a similar idea of 
setting a carbon pollution fee. Her bill would have directed that new 
revenue toward helping communities adopt climate resiliency measures as 
well as providing a monthly rebate to U.S. households.
  Well, maybe we don't have the magic formula yet, but we ought to be 
able to agree that lowering tax rates for businesses and individuals 
would be a good thing. But if you are going to do that, you have to 
have the revenue to pay for it. In other words, you have to have the 
revenue to replace the revenue that is there now if you lower the tax 
rates.
  If you set a price on carbon emissions, it could generate anywhere 
from $1 trillion to $2 trillion over a decade. That revenue can put 
money back into the pockets of hard-working people by virtue of 
lowering their tax rates.
  Some people might think this is a political issue that Big Business 
is unanimously opposed to. When I first heard it, that is what I 
thought would be the case. But, lo and behold, that is not the case. On 
June 1, six major oil and gas companies, including Shell, signed a 
joint letter to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 
Change in support of establishing a carbon pricing system. What these 
giant corporations understand is that something must be done to reduce 
carbon emissions, and if they do not pursue a carbon fee or something 
like it, they are going to face what they do not want to face, which is 
EPA regulation and lawsuits and additional public scrutiny over their 
contribution to pollution.
  In their letter, these CEOs write: ``As major companies from the oil 
and gas sector, we recognize both the importance of climate challenge 
and the importance of energy to human life and well-being.''
  If these corporate giants can acknowledge the seriousness and urgency 
of climate change, then it just doesn't make sense that we can't get 
over this political hangup about a fee--call it a tax--on carbon and 
address it here in the Senate.
  Many of my colleagues are concerned and frustrated, especially if 
they live in a State like mine where the sea level is rising. The mayor 
of Miami Beach cut a TV campaign advertisement in a kayak at seasonal 
high tide on Alton Road in Miami Beach. Is it any wonder we feel like 
the canary in the coal mine? So we are sounding the alarm and echoing 
the warning of scientists, echoing the warning of faith leaders--now 
the Pope is going to speak tomorrow in his encyclical--and we are 
echoing the warnings of Americans who are already experiencing real 
consequences of what is happening with the climate. The State of 
Florida is the literal canary in the coal mine. The State of Florida is 
ground zero for all of this that is happening.
  This year is going to mark 10 years since Hurricane Katrina, and just 
last month experts at CBO estimated that with climate change, hurricane 
damage will skyrocket over the next 60 years. Why? Because as the Earth 
heats up--when the Sun rays reflect off the Earth and reflect back into 
space, if the greenhouse gases are there, they act as a shield, and 
that traps the heat. Where does 90 percent of the heat go? It goes into 
the world's oceans. The hotter the water, the more fuel for a more 
ferocious hurricane. Floods, droughts, heat waves, sea level rise, 
wildfires, melting sea ice--these are costly and deadly consequences.

[[Page 9779]]

  Regardless of what it takes--the science, the economics, the 
corporate executives, the moral imperative, and the Pope--we must call 
attention to the problem. Let's not suffer the same fate as other 
canaries in the coal mines. I encourage all of our colleagues to look 
at this issue anew. Look at it with an eye toward confronting the 
challenge and being good stewards of Earth's bounty that we are all 
blessed to have.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to speak a few moments as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Congratulating the Golden State Warriors

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I have had three chances to say 
congratulations to the San Francisco Giants when they won the World 
Series over the last 5 years, and I didn't do it. Last night, the 
Golden State Warriors won the NBA Finals, and I want to remedy the 
error of my ways and come and offer the heartiest congratulations to a 
truly great basketball team.
  This team had a remarkable season. Their regular season of 67 and 15 
was the sixth best in the history of the NBA, and they went 16 and 5 in 
the playoffs. But their dominance wasn't built on brute force; it was 
built on finesse, strategy, and teamwork.
  Steph Curry was a real superstar, offering flashes of brilliance all 
season. I had the occasion to meet him and have a picture taken with 
him, and as I stood against this tall American and put my arm around 
his waist, I realized how slender he was. I subsequently learned they 
are trying to get him to eat 6,000 calories a day--I guess to meet 
LeBron James. It was quite a matchup, and I was delighted to be able to 
watch these games. After a scary fall in game 4 against the Rockets, 
Steph came back in game 5 to lead the Warriors in scoring, boosting 
them into the finals.
  Last year, when I met them at a Warriors' practice, I saw a little 
bit about the team. And one player I hadn't met was a gentleman by the 
name of Andre Iguodala, who really came alive against the Cavaliers in 
the finals. After playing off the bench the first three games, he 
started the final three and was the defensive spark the Warriors 
needed.
  Now, no one can stop LeBron James, and as I watched the series, I 
really marveled at this man because he was
a very intelligent player. Once he charged toward that basket, there 
were very few who could stop him. It was an amazing performance.
  All season long, Klay Thompson was an offensive dynamo, stepping up 
when the team needed him most. And of course Draymond Green, Harrison 
Barnes, and others.
  And what a season for a brand new rookie coach Steve Kerr. He spent 
his whole life in basketball but has only a handful of months as coach 
under his belt. He took an undersized team with little playoff 
experience all the way. It was a dream come true.
  I would also like to congratulate the Warriors owners, Joe Lacob and 
Peter Guber, as well as the team's president, Rick Weltz. I have had 
the privilege of meeting these three people. Oakland can be very proud 
of them. They are building a new arena in San Francisco, so the whole 
Bay Area will have an opportunity to participate in this team's glory. 
These gentlemen bought the team 4 years ago. And in that short time, 
they have guided what was a moribund franchise into the best team in 
the league. So they rightly should be thanked for their accomplishment.
  Finally, to my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Ohio, Rob 
Portman, I offer my condolences, and I look forward to collecting on 
our wager, which Mr. President, is some Ohio beer. I trust it is going 
to be good beer, and I look forward to drinking it and hopefully being 
able to tell him that there will be another time, and his team can only 
but rise in glory as well.
  Finally, to the Warriors, I look forward to continued greatness, both 
in Oakland and across the bay in San Francisco. Their first title since 
1975 really brought the city of Oakland together and made them proud. I 
say to them, thank you for some wonderful memories.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. 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. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the 
conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Virginia, I be recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
15 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              The Economy

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about 
the changing nature of our economy. I come to talk about a part of our 
economy that I don't think most folks in this Chamber understand. It 
goes by many names. It is called the sharing economy, the on-demand 
economy, the gig economy, the 1099 economy. There is a lot of 
discussion, actually, in some circles about exactly what to call this 
changing nature of our economy, but there is no dispute that it 
represents a new dynamic and growing part of our American economy.
  It used to be that when you were introduced to someone, one of the 
first questions asked was, Where do you work? Today, particularly for 
the 80-plus million millennials who make up the largest age cohort in 
our society, the more appropriate question to ask is, What are you 
working on? That is because the American workforce is increasingly made 
up of freelancers, independent contractors, and the self-employed. Yet 
Washington mostly has remained on the sidelines as our economy, the 
workforce, and the workplace have undergone what may be the most 
dramatic transformation literally in decades.
  By my count, as folks announced yesterday, almost 25 people are 
running for President in 2016. Frankly, I find it remarkable that none 
of them in either party are even talking about these fundamental 
changes in how, when, and where Americans are currently working 
because, whether by economic necessity or by choice, one-third or more 
of the American workers now find themselves piecing together two, 
three, or more on-demand opportunities to make a living. As I said 
earlier, it is called the sharing economy, the on-demand economy, or 
the gig economy. It includes, as I mentioned earlier as well, a lot of 
young and--at least they think so--invincible millennials, 80 million-
strong, who began entering the workforce in the year 2000 and 
afterward.
  The good news about this generation is it is the best educated, the 
most diverse and tolerant, the most technologically adept, and the most 
comfortable with disruptive change of any generation America has seen. 
And that is good. Most millennials grew up in the glow of a computer 
monitor. Since childhood, most have maintained an online identity and 
network in real time with friends. Members of this generation can, if 
they choose, graduate from a college or university without ever 
stepping foot on its campus. Armed with a tablet or smart phone, they 
can successfully work for an employer without ever sitting at a desk 
from 9 to 5. But it is not just the millennials who are pushing the 
envelope in how, when, and where people work. It also includes many 
middle-aged professionals, unexpectedly downsized at midcareer. It 
includes baby boomers--folks from my generation and a number of my 
college classmates--who have been hit with a premature end to what they 
thought before the recession was a solid career. Frankly, it also 
includes a lot of folks for whom working multiple jobs at the

[[Page 9780]]

same time is nothing new. They call it survival, and it hasn't gotten 
any easier. Yet, here in Washington, too few policymakers are thinking 
creatively about ways to provide more Americans with more footholds 
into this new world of on-demand or freelance work.
  In addition, today we have a whole set of new online platforms, 
companies that didn't even exist 5 years ago, such as Airbnb, Uber, 
TaskRabbit, and Etsy. Think about Airbnb alone--it already has more 
rooms available than Marriott. These platforms match supply and demand 
for things people never even thought about monetizing before--a room, a 
ride, a specific skill, even the whole notion of free time. But many of 
the business models in this on-demand economy are built upon the 
premise that workers are independent contractors, not employees. This 
means that employers can end the relationship at any time. Much of the 
work is project-based. Contracts and clients can dry up, and it is 
tougher to create new ones without an office to go to. It also means 
employers do not have to pay costs or contribute to health insurance or 
retirement. They also particularly don't pay a share of unemployment or 
workers' compensation.
  The whole notion of the social safety net and social contract between 
the employer and the worker has totally changed. If we think back to my 
parents' generation 40 years ago--I think about my father. He didn't 
make a lot of money but knew that he would get benefits, that when he 
retired, he would get a pension. That changed in my generation, the 
baby boomers. You didn't work for the same place. You moved around to a 
few different jobs. We moved into what I would call the 401(k) 
generation, defined benefits. We moved to defined contribution.
  The fact is, today these on-demand workers, even if they are doing 
relatively well, exist on a high wire with no social safety net beneath 
them. That may work for many of them when times are going well--until 
the day they aren't. That is why ultimately, when things go wrong for 
this new gig economy, workers without any safety net, without any 
unemployment, without any workmen's comp, could fall and ultimately end 
up on the taxpayers' dime.
  That is why Washington needs to catch up and start asking some tough 
policy questions--but also with the recognition that with the growth in 
this part of the economy, Washington can't impose a solution.
  First, the biggest challenge may be this fundamental change in the 
employer-employee relationship. Are there other options for providing a 
safety net of basic benefits for workers who are not connected to a 
traditional full-time employer? Who should administer it? Should it be 
opt-in or opt-out? We could look to the health care exchanges as a 
public-private model now--in many cases--that they largely appear to be 
working. Could we think about an unemployment or workmen's comp 
exchange that workers and employers could work with?
  We might borrow the idea of the hour bank used by the traditional 
trade unions for 60 years. A carpenter would move from one contractor 
to another, committing a little bit of resources, the employer 
committing resources, but it was administered by a trusted third party.
  Other countries--primarily in the EU--are experimenting with worker-
administered pools. Freelancers put in a certain amount of income based 
on the income they would need to replace if they got sick or injured, 
and they collect it if they are sidelined for more than a month.
  Part of a solution might even be consumer-driven. What if customers 
could designate a portion of their payments to Uber or Airbnb into a 
designated fund that helps support workers--a social insurance fund? 
There may be other public-private models out there, and they deserve a 
look, too.
  Second, this is too important to leave to the courts. While 
litigation is underway about whether on-demand workers are independent 
contractors or employees, we cannot and must not leave this to the 
courts alone. We learned just today of a ruling from California labor 
regulators--a ruling that is expected to be challenged. California 
labor regulators have determined that Uber drivers are to be considered 
employees and not independent contractors. This ruling demonstrates yet 
again why Federal policymakers need to reexamine the whole notion of 
20th-century definitions and employment classifications when we are 
thinking about a 21st-century workforce.
  As I mentioned, as many as one-third of American workers are 
participating in some aspect of this on-demand economy. We have a 
responsibility to provide clarity and predictability instead of 
allowing inconsistency as these issues are litigated on a case-by-case, 
State-by-State basis.
  Third, the Federal Government needs to become much more nimble. 
Frankly, folks on both sides of the aisle would acknowledge that the 
Federal Government operates at less than dial-up speed. We need better 
data about how many people are a part of the gig and sharing economies.
  At the request of Senators Murray and Gillibrand, the GAO reported 
last month that the Department of Labor has not been tasked with a 
deep-dive on workforce data in more than 10 years. Better data would 
tell us a lot about who is working in this sharing economy and what 
characteristics they share. Better data would result in better policy.
  As Federal policymakers, we also need to recommit to extending 
broadband to underserved and unserved regions. You can't be linked in 
if you don't have a link.
  In addition, we should streamline the hodgepodge of Federal programs 
we have set up to support innovators and entrepreneurs. These programs 
are scattered across dozens of Federal agencies, and they exist in a 
budgetary cycle of feast or famine.
  We cannot ignore the opportunity costs of this generation's combined 
$1.2 trillion in student debt. It is limiting options, opportunities, 
and economic mobility for an entire generation.
  Finally, this millennial generation is beginning to fuel a tremendous 
shift in one of the most traditional anchors of America's economy, and 
we need to, quite honestly, recognize and respond to it. Younger 
Americans are making it clear that in many cases they prefer sharing 
and renting over ownership.
  I was talking to Brad Chesky, the CEO of Airbnb, the other day. As I 
mentioned, Airbnb already provides more rooms than Marriott, and this 
is a company that didn't even exist 5 years ago. The CEO offered this 
comparison: His parents' generation--my generation--defined the idea of 
success in America as owning a nice house, having two cars, putting 
your kids through college, and maybe, just maybe, if you did well, 
getting a little house at the beach or on the lake. But he says the 
hallmarks of success for this millennial generation are much more 
different. Younger people want control of their data and online 
reputations. They don't necessarily aspire to own things such as cars 
or houses; they want to collect cool experiences, which they can best 
document and share online.
  I ask all my colleagues, the next time you are at a townhall, ask 
your audience: Would you rather have a home mortgage deduction or a 
direct credit against your student debt? It doesn't matter what the age 
group is, 90 percent overall will say: Give me that credit on my 
student debt rather than on a home mortgage deduction.
  Think about this. As policymakers, this generational move away from 
ownership and toward sharing and renting could have huge impacts for 
every level of government. That is because we currently use our Tax 
Code to reward ownership of everything from homes, to vehicles, to 
factories. Property taxes are how State and local governments pay for 
public schools, public health, and public safety. If we have an economy 
increasingly built on sharing and renting and not ownership, that could 
have tremendous ramifications.
  I mentioned that 5 years ago no one had even heard of Airbnb or Uber. 
And while we don't know what the disruptive technology of tomorrow 
might look like, we know developments such

[[Page 9781]]

as driverless cars, same-day drone deliveries, and 3-D printing are 
right around the corner. Some version is here to stay. As policymakers, 
we need to ask the right questions, discuss the appropriate rules of 
the road, and know when we need to get out of the way. Instead of 
trying to make this new economy look like the old, Washington should 
encourage more of this innovation, and we need to work to create more 
opportunities and more upward economic mobility for everybody.
  I, for one, look forward to continuing this discussion today and in 
the weeks to come.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, 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. INHOFE. 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. 1911, as Modified

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, 
notwithstanding the filing deadline in rule XXII, it be in order for me 
to offer a modification to the pending Hatch amendment No. 1911 with 
the text that is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--and I will 
not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I am aware that the Senator from Oklahoma feels very 
strongly about this amendment. We discussed it and voted on it in the 
committee. At that time, I told the Senator from Oklahoma--who is my 
friend, for many years--that I would do what I could to see that he got 
a vote before the entire Senate. I am in disagreement with his 
amendment, but I want to respect his right to offer it. So--and I 
appreciate less than you know his tenacity--Mr. President, I will not 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

  (Purpose: To study the impact of commissary privatization prior to 
initiating a pilot program and to require a report on the Department of 
    Defense definition of and policy regarding software sustainment)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. REPORT AND ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL COSTS AND 
                   BENEFITS OF PRIVATIZING DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                   COMMISSARIES.

       (a) In General.--Not later than February 1, 2016, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed 
     Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a 
     report assessing the viability of privatizing, in whole or in 
     part, the Department of Defense commissary system. The report 
     shall be so submitted to Congress before the development of 
     any plans or pilot program to privatize defense commissaries 
     or the defense commissary system.
       (b) Elements.--The assessment required by subsection (a) 
     shall include, at a minimum, the following:
       (1) A methodology for defining the total number and 
     locations of commissaries.
       (2) An evaluation of commissary use by location in the 
     following beneficiary categories:
       (A) Pay grades E-1 through E-4.
       (B) Pay grades E-5 through E-7.
       (C) Pay grades E-8 and E-9.
       (D) Pay grades O-1 through O-3.
       (E) Pay grades O-4 through O-6.
       (F) Pay grades O-7 through O-10.
       (G) Military retirees.
       (3) An evaluation of commissary use in locations outside 
     the continental United States and in remote and isolated 
     locations in the continental United States when compared with 
     other locations.
       (4) An evaluation of the cost of commissary operations 
     during fiscal years 2009 through 2014.
       (5) An assessment of potential savings and efficiencies to 
     be achieved through implementation of some or all of 
     recommendations of the Military Compensation and Retirement 
     Modernization Commission.
       (6) A description and evaluation of the strategy of the 
     Defense Commissary Agency for pricing products sold at 
     commissaries.
       (7) A description and evaluation of the transportation 
     strategy of the Defense Commissary Agency for products sold 
     at commissaries.
       (8) A description and evaluation of the formula of the 
     Defense Commissary Agency for calculating savings for its 
     customers as a result of its pricing strategy.
       (9) An evaluation of the average savings per household 
     garnered by commissary use.
       (10) A description and evaluation of the use of private 
     contractors and vendors as part of the defense commissary 
     system.
       (11) An assessment of costs or savings, and potential 
     impacts to patrons and the Government, of privatizing the 
     defense commissary system, including potential increased use 
     of Government assistance programs.
       (12) A description and assessment of potential barriers to 
     privatization of the defense commissary system.
       (13) An assessment of the extent to which patron savings 
     would remain after the privatization of the defense 
     commissary system.
       (14) An assessment of the impact of any recommended changes 
     to the operation of the defense commissary system on 
     commissary patrons, including morale and retention.
       (15) An assessment of the actual interest of major grocery 
     retailers in the management and operations of all, or part, 
     of the existing defense commissary system.
       (16) An assessment of the impact of privatization of the 
     defense commissary system on off-installation prices of 
     similar products available in the system.
       (17) An assessment of the impact of privatization of the 
     defense commissary system, and conversion of the Defense 
     Commissary Agency workforce to non-appropriated fund status, 
     on employment of military family members, particularly with 
     respect to pay, benefits, and job security.
       (18) An assessment of the impact of privatization of the 
     defense commissary system on Exchanges and Morale, Welfare 
     and Recreation (MWR) quality-of-life programs.
       (c) Use of Previous Studies.--The Secretary shall consult 
     previous studies and surveys on matters appropriate to the 
     report required by subsection (a), including, but not limited 
     to, the following:
       (1) The January 2015 Final Report of the Military 
     Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission.
       (2) The 2014 Military Family Lifestyle Survey Comprehensive 
     Report.
       (3) The 2013 Living Patterns Survey.
       (4) The report required by section 634 of the Carl Levin 
     and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) on the 
     management, food, and pricing options for the defense 
     commissary system.
       (d) Comptroller General Assessment of Report.--Not later 
     than May 1, 2016, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of 
     the Senate and the House of Representatives a report setting 
     forth an assessment by the Comptroller General of the report 
     required by subsection (a).

     SEC. ___. REPORT ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFINITION OF AND 
                   POLICY REGARDING SOFTWARE SUSTAINMENT.

       (a) Report on Assessment of Definition and Policy.--Not 
     later than March 15, 2016, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     submit to the congressional defense committees and the 
     President pro tempore of the Senate a report setting forth an 
     assessment, obtained by the Secretary for purposes of the 
     report, on the definition used by the Department of Defense 
     for and the policy of the Department regarding software 
     maintenance, particularly with respect to the totality of the 
     term ``software sustainment'' in the definition of ``depot-
     level maintenance and repair'' under section 2460 of title 
     10, United States Code.
       (b) Independent Assessment.--The assessment obtained for 
     purposes of subsection (a) shall be conducted by a federally 
     funded research and development center (FFRDC), or another 
     appropriate independent entity with expertise in matters 
     described in subsection (a), selected by the Secretary for 
     purposes of the assessment.
       (c) Elements.--
       (1) In general.--The assessment obtained for purposes of 
     subsection (a) shall address, with respect to software and 
     weapon systems of the Department of Defense (including space 
     systems), each of the following:
       (A) Fiscal ramifications of current programs with regard to 
     the size, scope, and cost of software to the program's 
     overall budget, including embedded and support software, 
     percentage of weapon systems' functionality controlled by 
     software, and reliance on proprietary data, processes, and 
     components.
       (B) Legal status of the Department in regards to adhering 
     to section 2464(a)(1) of such title with respect to ensuring 
     a ready and controlled source of maintenance and sustainment 
     on software for its weapon systems.
       (C) Operational risks and reduction to materiel readiness 
     of current Department weapon systems related to software 
     costs, delays,

[[Page 9782]]

     re-work, integration and functional testing, defects, and 
     documentation errors.
       (D) Other matters as identified by the Secretary.
       (2) Additional matters.--For each of subparagraphs (A) 
     through (C) of paragraph (1), the assessment obtained for 
     purposes of subsection (a) shall include review and analysis 
     regarding sole-source contracts, range of competition, rights 
     in technical data, public and private capabilities, 
     integration lab initial costs and sustaining operations, and 
     total obligation authority costs of software, disaggregated 
     by armed service, for the Department.
       (d) Department of Defense Support.--The Secretary of 
     Defense shall provide the independent entity described in 
     subsection (b)with timely access to appropriate information, 
     data, resources, and analysis so that the entity may conduct 
     a thorough and independent assessment as required under such 
     subsection.

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, there is one last comment I wish to make. 
This is something that doesn't happen on the Senate floor. But the 
Senator from Arizona is indeed a very good friend. We disagree on this 
amendment. We will have a chance to have a vote on it. But the fact 
that he did make a commitment that I would have the vote is very 
meaningful to me, and he did keep his word, and I thank him very much.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, 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. GRAHAM. 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. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Nuclear Agreement with Iran

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to inform the body that I had a 
very good conversation with Secretary Kerry just a few minutes ago. 
Many of you may have been following the news. There was a statement 
attributed to Secretary Kerry that the possible military dimension of 
the Iranian nuclear program was no longer a priority in terms of 
reconciling what they have been doing in a military fashion with their 
nuclear program. Some of the words were to the effect that there will 
be no mea culpa required.
  I just got off the phone with him, and he indicated to me that 
possible military dimensions of the program in terms of the Iranian 
past behavior are very much on the table and essential to any 
agreement.
  April 8, 2015, here is what Secretary Kerry said. When asked in April 
if Iran must disclose past military-related nuclear activities as part 
of an agreement, Secretary Kerry said: They have to do it. It will be 
done. If there is going to be a deal, it will be done.
  Secretary Kerry reaffirmed to me that statement. I appreciate his 
calling me. I want the body to understand that a good deal with Iran 
would be a blessing. A bad deal would be a nightmare. The IAEA has not 
had access to the sites they need in terms of evaluating the possible 
military dimensions of the Iranian program and have not been allowed to 
go to Parchin, where we suspect that high explosive detonation was 
being tested as part of their nuclear weapons ambition.
  There are three things that the IAEA wants to look at before it can 
pass judgment over how far the Iranian nuclear program has gone down 
the military road. I can't imagine any deal that does not fully and 
completely answer every question about possible military dimensions of 
the Iranian nuclear program, because if you don't understand what they 
have done in the past, you don't know where you are in terms of going 
forward, and you can't have a meaningful inspection regime until you 
understand what they try to do in terms of our military dimension.
  I really do appreciate Secretary Kerry calling me. The one thing we 
learned about the Iranians and their nuclear program is that they 
cannot be trusted. They have lied, and they have cheated at every turn. 
There can be no wiggle room when it comes to the Iranians and a nuclear 
deal. Anytime, anywhere inspections are absolutely a must. 
Understanding their possible military dimensions is an absolute 
ingredient along with others.
  I am glad to have received this phone call from Secretary Kerry. But 
all of us need to be aware of whom we are dealing with when it comes to 
the Iranians and get every i dotted and every t crossed before you 
would even entertain a deal with the Iranians.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Absolutely.
  Mr. McCAIN. Is it my understanding from the Senator's statement that 
Secretary Kerry is now saying that was not an accurate quote of his----
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.
  Mr. McCAIN. That it was not urgent that the previous activities 
concerning the development of nuclear weapons would be absolutely 
required?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. He indicated that the statement that was attributed 
to him was taken out of context, and he reaffirmed to me on the phone 
that possible military dimensions are an essential part of the deal, as 
he indicated on April 8, 2015. I think he is issuing a statement or his 
office is right now. I think it is important for the body to understand 
that Secretary Kerry wants to clear up the record. I applaud him for 
that.
  I hope we can get a deal we all can live with. But at the end of the 
day, you have to remember who we are dealing with in terms of the 
Iranians. They have lied. They have cheated. When it comes to the 
military dimensions of their program, it is essential we know every 
detail before we can move forward with confidence.
  Mr. McCAIN. Could I ask additionally this: Did the Senator from South 
Carolina have an opportunity to ask Secretary Kerry about the latest 
information concerning Iranians who are now supplying weapons to the 
Taliban--the same Taliban that has killed many hundreds of Americans 
and wounded thousands of others? In other words, did you have a chance 
to ask the Secretary why we are pursuing this agreement while the 
Iranians' latest activity is supplying arms to the Taliban to kill 
Americans; the support of the Shiite militias in Iraq; the support of 
the Houthis in other countries, including Yemen; the support of the 
Iranians for Hezbollah in Lebanon, which in Syria is killing off the 
Free Syrian Army forces that we are supporting; and the continued 
development by Iran of a nuclear warhead and the vehicle with which to 
deliver it? I wonder if the Senator from South Carolina had the chance 
to ask the Secretary of State about those events and situations that 
exist in the Middle East today.
  Mr. GRAHAM. No, I did not. We talked specifically about his 
statements. But I understand the concern of the Senator from Arizona 
about the idea of doing an agreement with the Iranians that would give 
them money to fund what I think has been a very destructive war 
machine.
  From my point of view, we need to look at the Iranian behavior 
holistically and understand the consequences of flooding this 
administration with cash--the Iranian administration with cash--given 
the fact that what they are doing today is using whatever resources 
they have under sanctions to destabilize the Mideast. I doubt if any 
additional funds, if sanctions were relieved, would go to build 
hospitals or roads. I think they would go into the activity you just 
described. But this conversation was limited to the statement 
attributed to him yesterday. I think all of us should be very attuned 
to what is going on with these negotiations, as it is the most 
important decision any administration will make probably in modern 
history. The consequences of a bad deal are enormous. You could start a 
nuclear arms race in the Mideast. At the end of the day, the behavior 
of the Iranians, apart from their nuclear ambitions, is at best 
disturbing and should be, in my view, part of any negotiating package.
  But we are where we are, and I am glad to hear from the Secretary 
himself that possible military dimensions have to be fully explored and 
understood before you move forward with an agreement.

[[Page 9783]]

  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding Rule XXII, the time until 4 p.m. today be equally 
divided between the managers or their designees; that at 4 p.m. all 
post-cloture time be expired; further, that if cloture is invoked on 
H.R. 1735, that the time count as if it was invoked at 10 p.m. tonight 
and that the mandatory quorum call with respect to this cloture motion 
be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, 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. 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. KING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to 
speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Tree Street Youth

  Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I come to the Senate floor with some 
good news from my home State of Maine. World Refugee Day is this 
Saturday, and I would like to highlight an organization that sprung up 
spontaneously in one of our Maine cities that is really making a 
difference in the lives of young people, particularly young refugees 
from Somalia, Sudan, and other African countries, helping them to 
expand their own horizons.
  As the roots of our refugee and immigrant population continue to grow 
stronger in Maine and in the process strengthen our communities, a 
group called Tree Street Youth is helping to nurture that growth one 
student at a time. I have visited the Tree Street Youth, and it is an 
amazing program.
  Maine's history, like the rest of America, is inexorably linked to 
immigration. With the exception of our native tribes, we are all from 
somewhere else originally. It began with European immigrants from 
England, Scotland, and Ireland. People with French heritage came down 
from Canada, and Swedes settled in northern Aroostook County in Maine. 
African Americans were brought here against their will, but they became 
part of the stock of this country. For years, immigrants in Maine found 
work in mills, farms, and fields, and now their descendants are our 
leaders--business leaders, political leaders, our neighbors, our 
friends, and our family.
  Just as previous waves of immigrants have come to Maine in search of 
a better life for themselves and their children, newer immigrants--
including refugees, asylees, and asylum seekers from Somalia, South 
Sudan, and several central African countries--are making new homes in 
Maine and making Maine more diverse, more dynamic, and a better place 
in the process.
  I think it is important to point out that these refugees are people 
we have, in effect, invited to come to this country because the 
conditions in their former countries were so unstable or because they 
feared persecution. These people are not illegal immigrants. They are 
people, and they are not illegal aliens. They are people here under a 
legal process. They are looking for a new start, and they are willing 
to work hard, as we learned in Maine. But anyone who finds themselves 
in an entirely new and unfamiliar situation--in a situation where they 
may not be familiar with the language--can always use some help and 
support, and groups such as the Tree Street Youth in Lewiston are so 
important and can have such a huge impact because they smooth the 
transition and help promote cooperation and understanding within the 
community and particularly the transition of young people.
  This remarkable organization was founded in 2011 by two former Bates 
College students located in the city of Lewiston--Julia Sleeper and Kim 
Sullivan. They recognized the need for such a group--for such a 
facility. Tree Street Youth is dedicated to supporting young people in 
the Lewiston-Auburn area through academics, the arts, and athletics. 
The organization, which originally grew out of a simple after-school 
homework help program, now provides local youth with a safe space to 
promote healthy physical, social, emotional, and academic development.
  Through its flourishing arts, college prep, and job-training 
programs, Tree Street is not only giving young people the tools, 
support, and confidence they need to succeed, but it is also helping to 
bring all students from all backgrounds in the city of Lewiston 
together.
  Tree Street Youth has proven to be a tremendous resource in Lewiston 
and Auburn, particularly for young people from immigrant families. The 
support services and sense of community that is provided there empowers 
these young people to be independent and productive members of society. 
While integrating into the community can be difficult for recent 
immigrants, refugees, and their families, the Tree Street experience 
helps to connect young people to their peers and to the community as a 
whole. This is a two-way street of understanding that helps bring our 
communities together.
  For example, Tree Street Youth had an annual banquet this past May, 
and it was, I am told, a fun and emotional event and a showcase that 
allowed the Tree Street students to share some of their talents with 
the Lewiston-Auburn community. I am told that after students gave a 
variety of inspiring poetry readings, dance, and other performances 
about their experiences, it was hard to find a dry eye in the house. 
That really speaks to the life-changing power that this organization 
has brought to our community.
  Just as Tree Street Youth improves young lives, these young people 
can in turn improve Maine and America. We need motivated, talented, and 
creative people from all backgrounds if we are going to keep pace with 
the rest of the world. We need students like Muna Muhammad, whom I met 
here just a few weeks ago when she represented Maine in the Senate 
Youth Leadership Program. Muna, whose family is from Somalia, is the 
president of her class at Lewiston High School, serves as a student 
representative on the Lewiston school committee, is involved in her 
school's speech, mock trial, and civil rights teams, and has a long 
list of other accomplishments. They highlight her remarkable leadership 
qualities, which radiate when you meet her.
  This is what America is all about. It is about families from around 
the world finding a new start, bringing with them new perspectives, new 
ideas, and new hope for the future. It is the mainspring of the 
American experience. It is about a melting pot of peoples, cultures, 
and ideas that create a tapestry that is much stronger than any single 
thread.
  Welcoming new people and cultures hasn't always been easy, and it is 
not easy. Sometimes our differences are more immediately apparent than 
our similarities, but over the years, immigrants and refugees have 
proven to be an irreplaceable part--the essential part--of who America 
is.
  This wonderful organization started spontaneously in one of our great 
cities of Maine. Tree Street Youth has proven that support and 
community engagement can help ease that transition and create a 
brighter future for those students, for Maine, and for our entire 
country. That is good news for Maine and good news for the United 
States.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 9784]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               PORTS Act

  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the PORTS Act, 
legislation I have introduced to protect the American economy from 
crippling labor disputes at our seaports. Somebody asked why a Senator 
from Colorado was interested in legislation dealing with the work 
stoppage or slowdown that occurred on our ports on the west coast. 
Well, I will tell you why.
  I was contacted by numerous businesses and people that had their 
entire furniture lines taken out of their furniture stores. I talked to 
ranchers who had to face threats of a $1 billion ag export market. I 
talked to onion growers who watched as their domestic commodity prices 
crashed due to the port slowdown. I watched as stories were written in 
newspapers about apple growers in Washington unable to export apples so 
they dumped apples just to rot in the fields in Washington State.
  Trade through U.S. seaports is critical. We have been spending weeks 
on this floor and the floor of the House talking about the Trans-
Pacific Partnership and talking about the importance of trade promotion 
authority, and none of that is possible without an active, successful 
port system in this country.
  According to the American Association of Port Authorities, U.S. ports 
support 23 million jobs, and the value of related economic activity 
accounts for 26 percent of our national gross domestic product.
  Contract negotiations and related labor disputes at our ports clog up 
these vital arteries and lead to delays, higher costs, and lost 
business for industries throughout our country. Strikes, lockouts, and 
slowdowns may have been business as usual for labor unions in the past, 
but an increasingly global economy means that the collateral damage 
done to American workers and businesses has increased exponentially.
  The U.S. economy recently endured a 9-month labor dispute that 
affected all 29 of our west coast ports. The resulting logistical 
nightmare caused delays, higher costs, and lost businesses for 
industries in Colorado and throughout the United States. Ships full of 
cargo were anchored off our coast waiting for longshoremen to do their 
job on unloading international goods and loading American-made products 
for shipment to markets across the world. In Los Angeles and Long Beach 
alone, dozens of container ships sat anchored and idle.
  After 9 months and huge financial costs to our national economy, the 
parties reached an agreement in February to allow cargo to begin moving 
normally through the west coast ports again. Four months later, we are 
finally seeing that congestion beginning to ease, but it has taken this 
long.
  Many economists, including the Federal Reserve Board of Governors 
cited the labor dispute as a primary cause of the 0.7-percent decline 
in GDP in the first quarter of 2015. That means 29 west coast ports 
were primarily responsible for a 0.7-percent decline in GDP.
  Agricultural exports, including apples, hay, and Christmas trees lost 
export opportunities to overseas customers because they couldn't get 
products to market. Meat and poultry companies lost sales and faced 
port charges in excess of $30 million per week. Retail shipments were 
delayed from reaching store shelves, and some stores resorted to 
expensive air freight to stock goods. Manufacturers waiting on 
shipments had to shut down production lines and risked losing contracts 
with foreign customers.
  Colorado supplies Asia with over $500 million in beef products 
through the west coast ports, which accounts for about 23 percent of 
Colorado's total exports and 57 percent of Colorado's international 
exports. These and other meat and poultry exporters saw many of their 
products spoil as shipments were turned away at the port gates.
  Grain, machine parts, coal, fishing supplies, furniture, fresh 
produce, and pliable metals are all products of Colorado, and all were 
damaged by the labor dispute.
  Our exporters' relationships with Asian customers disintegrated as 
their orders were caught in the bottleneck. And storefronts lost 
customers because products took months to reach show floors.
  When Congress enacted Taft-Hartley nearly 70 years ago, Congress 
decided the health and reputation of the greatest economy in the world 
should not be used as leverage in labor contract negotiations.
  The opening statement of the act explains that Congress intended to 
minimize ``industrial strife which interferes with the normal flow of 
commerce.'' That means current law had provided a remedy, but 
unfortunately the administration did not use it.
  Under that very provision of Taft-Hartley, when a labor dispute 
threatens the national economy, the President is empowered to use the 
Federal courts to seek an injunction to end labor practices causing 
widespread disruptions. With 70 years of case law backing it up, this 
is a tried-and-true process that ensures that the self-interests and 
greed of a few does not impact the livelihoods of the many.
  Yet, when the west coast ports dispute threatened businesses and 
entire industries in States across the country, the President refused 
to act. For months, the Federal Executive decided not to exercise his 
authority under Taft-Hartley, depriving the country of critical dispute 
resolution powers.
  Legislation I have introduced, known as the PORTS Act, prevents this 
kind of economic disruption. It would discourage disruptions at U.S. 
ports by strengthening and expanding the well-known Taft-Hartley 
process.
  As we saw recently, the President of the United States may not be 
willing to adequately protect the economic rights and interests of 
American citizens. The PORTS Act would solve this by granting State 
Governors Taft-Hartley powers currently reserved for the President.
  A Governor from any State would have the opportunity to form a board 
of inquiry and start the Taft-Hartley process whenever a port labor 
dispute is causing economic harm. Once the board reports back, any 
Governor can petition Federal courts to enjoin slowdowns, strikes or 
lockouts at ports in their State.
  The act would also explicitly include slowdowns as a trigger for 
Taft-Hartley powers, preventing the President or Governors from using 
legal ambiguity to excuse an action. As a result, this legislation 
would give a stronger voice to local leaders by allowing those who are 
most affected by disruptions--local community leaders, business, 
employees, and consumers--to apply pressure on their Governors rather 
than trying to mobilize a national campaign to convince the President 
to act.
  In just 5 years, the labor contracts at both the east coast and the 
west coast ports will expire, possibly leading to labor disputes on 
both ends of the country. When the health of the national economy is 
threatened, the Federal Government has a duty to act, but it is clear 
the current Taft-Hartley powers depend too heavily on who controls the 
Presidency.
  It is critical that we have the necessary tools in place to prevent 
another debilitating crisis. So I urge my fellow colleagues to join me 
in supporting this important legislation. Countless retail 
organizations, individual businesses, and people across this country 
recognize the need to avoid in 5 years simultaneous slowdowns or 
shutdowns on the east and west coasts--what we just went through.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  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. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        King v. Burwell Decision

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, people across the country are eagerly 
anticipating the Supreme Court's decision in King v. Burwell and for 
good reason. This case will likely determine once

[[Page 9785]]

and for all whether the Obama administration violated its own law when 
it opted to issue health insurance tax subsidies to those who purchased 
insurance on federally run exchanges.
  Many have argued that this decision by the Supreme Court will 
determine the fate of the so-called Affordable Care Act. While that 
argument may be a little dramatic, it isn't far off.
  I have my own views on how the Court should rule in this case. 
Indeed, I have made it abundantly clear that in my view, the statute 
unambiguously limits the availability of premium tax subsidies to 
insurance plans purchased on State-run exchanges. I have also stated 
numerous times my belief that the Obama administration overstepped its 
authority and broke its own law when it offered subsidies to patients 
on exchanges established by the Federal Government.
  However, as we all await the outcome of the case, we need to be clear 
on one point. Regardless of how the Court rules in King v. Burwell, 
ObamaCare will continue to inflict harm on patients and taxpayers until 
it is repealed and replaced with sensible, patient-centered reform.
  Last week, President Obama reiterated that he had no alternative plan 
in place in the event that the Supreme Court rules against the 
administration in this case. On top of that, he flippantly stated that 
``Congress could fix this whole thing with a one-sentence provision.''
  Nothing could be further from the truth.
  The problems with ObamaCare are so fundamental and convoluted that 
the idea that the entire law could be fixed in one sentence borders on 
laughable.
  The President and his allies in Congress have gotten pretty good at 
cherry-picking favorable data points in order to claim that ObamaCare 
is working, but the overall numbers do not lie. Earlier this month, the 
administration announced proposed rate hikes of 10 percent or more for 
health insurance plans that enroll more than
6 million people in 41 States. This is just the latest premium hike 
patients and consumers have seen under ObamaCare, despite the fact that 
the authors of the law--including the President himself--promised it 
would bring costs down.
  The failure to reduce costs isn't the only broken promise we have 
seen with ObamaCare. Millions of Americans have lost their insurance 
plans and their doctors due to the overly burdensome mandates embedded 
in the law. Many of these same people were forced to navigate a failed 
Web site that jeopardized their private information. Others were forced 
to purchase plans that included coverage they didn't need or want.
  As a result of this misguided law, many hard-working taxpayers 
received incorrect tax documents relating to their premium subsidies, 
followed by a surprise tax bill. Just yesterday, the Department of 
Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General issued a 
report noting that the administration did not have systems in place to 
ensure that ObamaCare credits that went out last year were accurate. 
This vulnerability may be leading to untold billions in fraud, waste, 
and abuse.
  I could go on. The problems and hardships associated with ObamaCare 
have been well documented, and none of them can be solved with a one-
sentence bill.
  Millions of Americans have already suffered under ObamaCare, and if 
over the next few weeks the Supreme Court confirms that the 
administration broke the law by offering subsidies on Federal 
exchanges, millions more will face the negative consequences of this 
poorly drafted statute. In fact, a study published today by Avalere 
shows that these consumers could face annual premium contribution 
increases of $3,300 in 2015.
  Fortunately, Republicans in Congress have a transition plan to 
protect these patients. Indeed, there is a wide consensus that should 
the Court rule against the government in King v. Burwell, we need to 
act to protect Americans from further suffering at the hands of 
ObamaCare's broken promises.
  Toward that end, I support a transition plan that provides temporary 
financial assistance to those who would lose subsidies as a result of 
the Court's decision, to help them to keep their insurance if they want 
it.
  At the same time, the transition plan should peel back ObamaCare's 
burdensome mandates, give individuals more flexibility to purchase 
coverage that meets their needs, and give States the ability to develop 
policies to better serve their citizens.
  This temporary transition should build a bridge that gets us away 
from ObamaCare and puts us on a path toward lasting, patient-centered 
reform. Of course, this ultimate goal will have to wait until a new 
administration is in place--one that is actually willing to work with 
Congress to address the actual needs of patients and taxpayers.
  Despite the claims of uninformed critics, Republicans in Congress 
have been working for months to ensure that a transition plan will be 
ready when the Court delivers its ruling. And, make no mistake, we will 
do our best to be ready.
  At the same time, Republicans in both Chambers have worked together 
to put forward substantive and workable alternatives that would 
permanently replace the President's health care law with reforms that 
increase patient choice and reduce the role of the Federal Government 
in health care.
  I am a coauthor of one such plan called the Patient CARE Act. I, 
along with Chairman Alexander and Congressman Upton in the House, 
released the latest version of this plan earlier this year. The plan 
has gotten high marks from a number of analysts and publications.
  So while it is a common refrain by supporters of ObamaCare that chaos 
will ensue if the Court rules against the government in King v. 
Burwell, the facts tell a much different story. Republicans in Congress 
will be ready to respond quickly and decisively to any possible 
outcome.
  Now, let's be clear. None of us knows how the Court is going to rule 
in this case. I have heard analyses and predictions that vary across 
the board. But no matter how this particular case turns out, we know 
for certain that ObamaCare has been a dismal failure for American 
patients and hard-working taxpayers. This entire case is yet another 
reminder of how, more than 5 years after it was signed, this bill 
continues to cause problems. No matter how the Court rules in King v. 
Burwell, we need to chart a different course on health care for the 
American people.
  Let's face it. One reason we would set up a timeframe in case the 
Supreme Court rules against Secretary Burwell and the administration is 
that we need to set up a timeline where we can work on these matters 
and hopefully bring a national consensus to bear. Only so will we be 
able to resolve the problems that will be found--that are there--if we 
don't do what is right. So it is going to take some time. That is why 
we suggest that there should be time leading well into the next 
administration to be able to work on this to accomplish these matters 
and, during that time, make sure nobody is hurt because of the decision 
of King v. Burwell should it go against the government.
  This is one of the great problems of our time, and there is no simple 
answer, but we know we can't continue under the current law of 
ObamaCare as it is written. If we do, we are just going to continue to 
go down a sinkhole of expenditures, debts, doctors leaving their 
profession, and an inability to provide the health care that so 
glowingly was spoken of by this administration.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator withhold?
  Mr. HATCH. I am glad to withhold.
  Mr. INHOFE. First of all, let me say the senior Senator from Utah is 
doing a yeoman's job of exposing some of the fraudulent things we have 
been involved in for ObamaCare over this period of time, and I applaud 
him for that.


                Amendment No. 1911, as Further Modified

  Earlier today, I made a motion that was incomplete, and I wish to 
correct it, having to do with a drafting error.

[[Page 9786]]

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Hatch amendment No. 
1911 be further modified to address a drafting error.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment, as further modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. REPORT AND ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL COSTS AND 
                   BENEFITS OF PRIVATIZING DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                   COMMISSARIES.

       (a) In General.--Not later than February 1, 2016, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed 
     Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a 
     report assessing the viability of privatizing, in whole or in 
     part, the Department of Defense commissary system. The report 
     shall be so submitted to Congress before the development of 
     any plans or pilot program to privatize defense commissaries 
     or the defense commissary system.
       (b) Elements.--The assessment required by subsection (a) 
     shall include, at a minimum, the following:
       (1) A methodology for defining the total number and 
     locations of commissaries.
       (2) An evaluation of commissary use by location in the 
     following beneficiary categories:
       (A) Pay grades E-1 through E-4.
       (B) Pay grades E-5 through E-7.
       (C) Pay grades E-8 and E-9.
       (D) Pay grades O-1 through O-3.
       (E) Pay grades O-4 through O-6.
       (F) Pay grades O-7 through O-10.
       (G) Military retirees.
       (3) An evaluation of commissary use in locations outside 
     the continental United States and in remote and isolated 
     locations in the continental United States when compared with 
     other locations.
       (4) An evaluation of the cost of commissary operations 
     during fiscal years 2009 through 2014.
       (5) An assessment of potential savings and efficiencies to 
     be achieved through implementation of some or all of 
     recommendations of the Military Compensation and Retirement 
     Modernization Commission.
       (6) A description and evaluation of the strategy of the 
     Defense Commissary Agency for pricing products sold at 
     commissaries.
       (7) A description and evaluation of the transportation 
     strategy of the Defense Commissary Agency for products sold 
     at commissaries.
       (8) A description and evaluation of the formula of the 
     Defense Commissary Agency for calculating savings for its 
     customers as a result of its pricing strategy.
       (9) An evaluation of the average savings per household 
     garnered by commissary use.
       (10) A description and evaluation of the use of private 
     contractors and vendors as part of the defense commissary 
     system.
       (11) An assessment of costs or savings, and potential 
     impacts to patrons and the Government, of privatizing the 
     defense commissary system, including potential increased use 
     of Government assistance programs.
       (12) A description and assessment of potential barriers to 
     privatization of the defense commissary system.
       (13) An assessment of the extent to which patron savings 
     would remain after the privatization of the defense 
     commissary system.
       (14) An assessment of the impact of any recommended changes 
     to the operation of the defense commissary system on 
     commissary patrons, including morale and retention.
       (15) An assessment of the actual interest of major grocery 
     retailers in the management and operations of all, or part, 
     of the existing defense commissary system.
       (16) An assessment of the impact of privatization of the 
     defense commissary system on off-installation prices of 
     similar products available in the system.
       (17) An assessment of the impact of privatization of the 
     defense commissary system, and conversion of the Defense 
     Commissary Agency workforce to non-appropriated fund status, 
     on employment of military family members, particularly with 
     respect to pay, benefits, and job security.
       (18) An assessment of the impact of privatization of the 
     defense commissary system on Exchanges and Morale, Welfare 
     and Recreation (MWR) quality-of-life programs.
       (c) Use of Previous Studies.--The Secretary shall consult 
     previous studies and surveys on matters appropriate to the 
     report required by subsection (a), including, but not limited 
     to, the following:
       (1) The January 2015 Final Report of the Military 
     Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission.
       (2) The 2014 Military Family Lifestyle Survey Comprehensive 
     Report.
       (3) The 2013 Living Patterns Survey.
       (4) The report required by section 634 of the Carl Levin 
     and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) on the 
     management, food, and pricing options for the defense 
     commissary system.
       (d) Comptroller General Assessment of Report.--Not later 
     than May 1, 2016, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of 
     the Senate and the House of Representatives a report setting 
     forth an assessment by the Comptroller General of the report 
     required by subsection (a). Section 652 of the Act shall be 
     null and void.

     SEC. ___. REPORT ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFINITION OF AND 
                   POLICY REGARDING SOFTWARE SUSTAINMENT.

       (a) Report on Assessment of Definition and Policy.--Not 
     later than March 15, 2016, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     submit to the congressional defense committees and the 
     President pro tempore of the Senate a report setting forth an 
     assessment, obtained by the Secretary for purposes of the 
     report, on the definition used by the Department of Defense 
     for and the policy of the Department regarding software 
     maintenance, particularly with respect to the totality of the 
     term ``software sustainment'' in the definition of ``depot-
     level maintenance and repair'' under section 2460 of title 
     10, United States Code.
       (b) Independent Assessment.--The assessment obtained for 
     purposes of subsection (a) shall be conducted by a federally 
     funded research and development center (FFRDC), or another 
     appropriate independent entity with expertise in matters 
     described in subsection (a), selected by the Secretary for 
     purposes of the assessment.
       (c) Elements.--
       (1) In general.--The assessment obtained for purposes of 
     subsection (a) shall address, with respect to software and 
     weapon systems of the Department of Defense (including space 
     systems), each of the following:
       (A) Fiscal ramifications of current programs with regard to 
     the size, scope, and cost of software to the program's 
     overall budget, including embedded and support software, 
     percentage of weapon systems' functionality controlled by 
     software, and reliance on proprietary data, processes, and 
     components.
       (B) Legal status of the Department in regards to adhering 
     to section 2464(a)(1) of such title with respect to ensuring 
     a ready and controlled source of maintenance and sustainment 
     on software for its weapon systems.
       (C) Operational risks and reduction to materiel readiness 
     of current Department weapon systems related to software 
     costs, delays, re-work, integration and functional testing, 
     defects, and documentation errors.
       (D) Other matters as identified by the Secretary.
       (2) Additional matters.--For each of subparagraphs (A) 
     through (C) of paragraph (1), the assessment obtained for 
     purposes of subsection (a) shall include review and analysis 
     regarding sole-source contracts, range of competition, rights 
     in technical data, public and private capabilities, 
     integration lab initial costs and sustaining operations, and 
     total obligation authority costs of software, disaggregated 
     by armed service, for the Department.
       (d) Department of Defense Support.--The Secretary of 
     Defense shall provide the independent entity described in 
     subsection (b)with timely access to appropriate information, 
     data, resources, and analysis so that the entity may conduct 
     a thorough and independent assessment as required under such 
     subsection.

  Mr. INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. 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. 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, shortly we will have a vote. I would like 
to say a few words about the legislation before we do. How much time is 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. About 13 minutes remains.
  Mr. McCAIN. I say to my colleagues, this Defense Authorization Act is 
a reform bill. I repeat: It is a reform bill--a reform bill that will 
enable our military to rise to the challenges of a more dangerous world 
both today and in the future. It tackles acquisition reform, military 
retirement reform, personnel reform, headquarters and management 
reform.
  We identified $10 billion of excess and unnecessary spending from the 
President's budget request. We are reinvesting it in military 
capabilities for our warfighters and reforms that can yield long-term 
savings for the Department of Defense. We did all of this while 
upholding our commitments to our servicemembers, retirees, and their 
families.
  On acquisition reform, we put the services back into the acquisition 
process, created new mechanisms to ensure accountability for results, 
streamlined regulation, and opened up the defense

[[Page 9787]]

acquisition process to our Nation's innovators.
  On military reform, we modernized and improved our military 
retirement system. Today, 83 percent of servicemembers leave the 
service with no retirement assets or benefits. Under this new plan, 75 
percent of servicemembers would get benefits. This reform, over time, 
is estimated to save $15 billion per year in the outyears.
  On management reform, we ensure that the Department of Defense and 
the military services are using precious defense dollars to fulfill 
their missions and defend the Nation, not expand their bloated staffs. 
Targeted reductions in headquarters and administrative staff in this 
legislation--which is a 7.5-percent mandated reduction per year, up to 
a 30-percent reduction in the size of headquarters and administrative 
staff--will generate $1.7 billion in savings just for fiscal year 2016.
  With these savings and billions more identified throughout the bill, 
we accelerated shipbuilding, added an upgraded fighter aircraft, 
invested in key modernization priorities across the services, and met 
our commanders' most urgent needs. As adversaries threaten our military 
technological advantage, the bill looks to the future and invests in 
new breakthrough technologies, including directed energy and unmanned 
combat aircraft.
  The legislation is a reflection of the growing threats we face in the 
world. The legislation authorizes nearly $3.8 billion in support for 
Afghan security forces as they continue to defend their country in the 
gains of the last decade against our common enemies. The legislation 
authorizes the provision of defensive lethal assistance to Ukraine to 
help it build combat capability and defend its sovereign territory. It 
supports the efforts by Lebanon and Jordan to secure their borders 
against ISIL. It creates a new initiative to help Southeast Asian 
nations build maritime domain awareness capabilities to address growing 
sovereignty challenges in the South China Sea.
  This is an ambitious piece of legislation, but in the times we live 
in, that is exactly what we need.
  Henry Kissinger told our committee earlier this year that our Nation 
faces the most diverse and complex array of crises since the end of 
World War II. Rising to these challenges requires bold reform to our 
national defense. This legislation represents a strong first step in 
that direction.
  As I said, this is a reform bill. This is an authorizing bill. This 
brings about much needed reforms. I cannot go to the people of Arizona 
and justify defense spending when there is a $2.4 billion cost overrun 
on an aircraft carrier, when there are a number of weapons systems 
which billions of dollars have been invested in and which have never 
become reality. That system has to be reformed. That is what this bill 
does.
  We have to reform our military retirement system. We allow people, 
after just 2 years of service, to contribute to their own retirement. 
Today, they have to wait 20 years in order to do that.
  We upgrade fighter aircraft.
  We tell the defense industry that they cannot have those cost 
overruns. If there are cost overruns, the service chiefs have to 
personally sign that they know of, are aware of, and are taking action 
to prevent further cost overruns.
  So there is a lot in this legislation. It is an authorizing 
legislation. That is why it disturbs me a great deal to hear my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying they want to vote 
against it because of OCO. That is not sufficient reason in these 
times. If they want to fight against OCO, the place to do it--the 
overseas contingency operation money which brings up authorizing 
spending to the same level that the President has requested--if they 
want to do that, then let's have that fight in another arena. But let's 
not take away from the men and women who are serving in this military 
the equipment and the training and the leadership that is demanded in 
the world as it is today--in the words of Henry Kissinger, more diverse 
and complex array of crises since the end of World War II.
  So I urge all of my colleagues to restate their commitment to the 
defense of this Nation by voting in favor of this legislation and 
cloture prior to that. I urge my colleagues--all of them--to understand 
that we can fight about this funding situation, the need to repeal 
sequestration--sequestration is destroying our military's capability to 
defend this Nation. Every uniformed service leader who appeared before 
the Armed Services Committee said that with sequestration, we are 
putting the lives of the men and women in uniform at greater risk. We 
should not do that. We ask young men and women to volunteer for the 
military, and yet we here in Congress won't take action to keep them 
from being placed in greater danger. That is an abrogation of our 
responsibility. This bill does not fix all that, but it certainly is a 
major step in the right direction.
  Almost all of this legislation was done on a bipartisan basis. There 
were literally--there were some small disagreements, but overall the 
committee together.
  Now, at the behest of their leadership and perhaps the President of 
the United States, they are so torqued up about OCO that they may vote 
against this legislation's passage, and that, my friends, is an 
abrogation of their responsibility to the men and women who are serving 
this country. If they choose to vote against this legislation on the 
grounds that they are opposed to the funding mechanism used to do so, 
then they have their priorities upside down, and I intend to tell the 
American people about it because I believe that we are not serving the 
men and women who are serving this country to the best of their ability 
and not receiving the support they need and deserve from the Senate of 
the United States of America.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. 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. 1911, as Further Modified

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am speaking on an amendment that the 
Senate will be voting on shortly, the Inhofe-Mikulski amendment. 
Really, the amendment was led by the distinguished Senator from 
Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe. This is really about commissaries.
  We are here ready to vote on the Department of Defense authorization. 
We want to stand up for our troops. One of the most important things we 
can do is to stand up for their families.
  Senator Inhofe and I are deeply concerned that DOD has the misguided 
viewpoint that shrinking or eliminating or privatizing the commissaries 
will save money for the U.S. Department of Defense. We do not even know 
what the impact of that will be. Senator Inhofe, with my encouragement 
and support, wants to have an amendment that would actually look at the 
impact of privatization and a private program to do so. So I want my 
side of the aisle to know we stand shoulder to shoulder on this. The 
Senator from Oklahoma has done an outstanding job as always in standing 
up for the troops and their very important benefits.
  I note that he is on the floor. I ask that when the rollcall is 
called, we support the Inhofe-Mikulski amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized for a couple of minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first, I wish to say to the Senator from 
Maryland how much I appreciate the fact that we are reaching across the 
aisle and doing something that is right for the kids who are out there 
risking their lives for us.
  I make it a habit to go to the areas of combat with regularity, as do 
other members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and I always get 
a chance to really talk with and get to know them. You learn a lot more 
by talking to the kids in the mess hall there than you do by going to 
the committee hearings here in the United States.

[[Page 9788]]

  One of the things they have a real love for, as I am sure the Senator 
from Maryland suggested to you, is the commissary. In some areas that 
are remote, there is no competition. There aren't any Walmarts around; 
there is just a commissary. And there is almost a fraternal belief and 
feeling, as people go around--particularly, the spouses will meet 
there. They will do their shopping there. It is something that is very 
serious to them.
  There is language in this bill that says that they will take an 
experiment in some five different areas that have large commissaries, 
go ahead and privatize those, and then after that takes place, do an 
assessment as to whether they should be privatized.
  This amendment is very simple. It merely says: Let's do the 
assessment first. Why go ahead and close these commissaries if we find 
that is something that we should not, in fact, do?
  We have so many interests. First of all, we have--as I am sure the 
Senator from Maryland mentioned--we have some 25 cosponsors already. 
This is without real effort. We also have some 41 organizations 
supporting this bill.
  I see that the time is up.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time 
has expired.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield to the Chair.


            Vote on Amendment No. 1911, as Further Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to Hatch amendment 
No. 1911, as further modified.
  The amendment (No. 1911), as further modified, was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1456

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and 
nays be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to McCain amendment No. 1456.
  The amendment (No. 1456) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order to make a point of order against all the pending nongermane 
amendments en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


 Amendments Nos. 1564, as Modified; 1825; 1559, as Modified; 1543, as 
                        Modified; 1645; and 1486

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the following 
amendments are not germane: amendments Nos. 1564, 1825, 1559, 1543, 
1645, and 1486.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained, and the 
amendments fall.


                 Vote on Amendment No. 1463, as Amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to 
amendment No. 1463, as amended.
  The amendment (No. 1463), as amended, was agreed to.


                             cloture motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on H.R. 1735, an 
     act 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.
         Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Richard C. Shelby, Jeff 
           Flake, John Barrasso, John Cornyn, Mike Rounds, Jeff 
           Sessions, Shelley Moore Capito, Lamar Alexander, 
           Lindsey Graham, Joni Ernst, John Hoeven, Roger F. 
           Wicker, Kelly Ayotte, Richard Burr, Thom Tillis.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). By unanimous consent, the 
mandatory quorum call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on H.R. 
1735, an act 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, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  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 Utah (Mr. Lee) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 84, nays 14, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 214 Leg.]

                                YEAS--84

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

                                NAYS--14

     Baldwin
     Brown
     Casey
     Cruz
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     Merkley
     Reid
     Sanders
     Warren
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Lee
     Rubio
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 84, the nays are 
14.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Kansas.

                          ____________________