[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7940-7959]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 2943, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2943) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2017 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. 4229, to address unfunded priorities 
     of the Armed Forces.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.


                  Cyber Security and Our Electric Grid

  Mr. KING. Mr. President, at 3:30 in the afternoon on December 23 of 
last year, about a half hour before sunset, the lights started to go 
out in western Ukraine. The power started to go out. The operator in 
one of the Ukrainian powerplants noticed, to his horror, that he no 
longer controlled the cursor on his computer screen. The cursor moved 
of its own accord and started opening dialogue boxes and opening 
breakers.
  The operator tried frantically to get back into the computer, only to 
find he was locked out and the password had been changed. At the same 
time, the call center of this utility in Ukraine was blocked by 
thousands of fake calls, so the utility itself could not know what was 
happening in the countryside. The backup generators around western 
Ukraine also went down. Malware was installed on the operating 
computers and a system called KillDisk was installed, which wiped the 
disks and rendered the computers useless.
  As a final insult, the power in the power control system itself went 
off and the operators were literally left in the dark. This was the 
first major cyber attack of a public utility anywhere in the world. It 
was sophisticated, it was well planned, and it was devastating. Within 
a few minutes, 230,000 people in the country of Ukraine were without 
power.
  That attack could have occurred in Kansas City, in San Jose, in New 
York, or here in Washington. Ever since I have served in this body as a 
member of the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees, I have heard 
repeated warnings from every public official involved with intelligence 
and national security that an attack on our critical infrastructure is 
not possible, it is likely.
  How many shots across our bow, how many warning shots do we have to 
endure? Sony, the OPM, insurance companies, and now the nightmare 
scenario of an electric grid attack.
  We can learn something from what happened in the Ukraine, and there 
is a piece of good news and a lesson for us. The attack, which left 
230,000 people without power, only persisted for about 6 hours. The 
interesting part of the scenario of this development was that one of 
the reasons they were able to get the power back on so fast was because 
the Ukrainian grid was not up to modern--I hesitate to say 
``standards''--practices in terms of its interconnectedness and its 
digitization. There were old-fashioned analog switches, and the most 
old-fashioned analog switch of all, a human being, who could actually 
throw breakers and get the system back online.
  However, in this country we are not so lucky, and I use that in a 
very sort of backward way because we have the most advanced grid 
structure in the world. We are more digital, we are more automated, we 
are more interconnected, but that makes us more vulnerable. That makes 
us more vulnerable. We are asymmetrically vulnerable because we are 
asymmetrically interconnected. We keep getting these warning shots. A 
lot is being done by our utilities and by our government agencies to 
work on protecting this country from a devastating cyber attack. But I 
know of no one who would assert that enough is being done and that we 
are ahead of this threat.
  I introduced a bill yesterday, along with three cosponsors: Senator 
Risch from Idaho, Senator Collins from Maine, and Senator Heinrich from 
New Mexico--all of whom, along with myself, are members of the 
Intelligence Committee, where we hear about these threats practically 
weekly. The bill is pretty straightforward. It tasks our great National 
Labs with working with the utilities over a 2-year period to determine, 
not new software patches and new complexity, but if we can protect our 
grid by returning to, at least at critical points in the grid, the old-
fashioned analog switches or good-old Fred, who has to go and throw a 
breaker with his dog. It may be that going back to the future, if you 
will--going back to the past and simplifying some of these critical 
connection points may be the best protection we can have. The idea is 
for the Labs to put their best people on this and for the utilities to 
do the same on a voluntary basis.
  I might add that there is nothing mandatory about this bill. We are 
trying to work on finding some solutions that are implementable in the 
short run to protect us from this grave threat. Once we get a report 
back, hopefully we will be able to implement this legislation across 
the country.
  I am tired of hearing warnings. It is really time for us to act, and 
this is a straightforward bill that I hope can move through this body 
at the speed of a cyber attack so that we can then have the defense we 
have to have.
  An attack on our critical infrastructure--particularly the electric 
infrastructure across this country--would, in fact, be devastating and 
would undoubtedly involve a loss of lives. I do not want to be here on 
a darkening winter afternoon and see the lights going off across 
America--the power to hospitals, the power to our transportation 
system, the power that makes our lives what they are today. This is not 
an abstract threat. We know from the Ukraine that the capability exists 
to do exactly that and take down the

[[Page 7941]]

grid. We must act expeditiously and directly to counteract that threat. 
If we do not do so, we are failing our responsibility to the people of 
America, our constituents, and the United States.
  I urge rapid consideration of this bill, and I look forward to its 
consideration at the Energy Committee. Three of the four sponsors are 
also members of the Energy Committee as well as the Intelligence 
Committee, and I am hoping we can move this rapidly so we can begin the 
process of countering what is not an abstract threat but a direct, 
clear, and present danger to the future of this country.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am here this morning to urge my 
colleagues to support an amendment that I have offered to the National 
Defense Authorization Act to extend the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa 
Program, also known as the SIV Program.
  The SIV Program gives Afghans who supported the U.S. mission in 
Afghanistan and now face grave threats because of their willingness to 
help our service men and women on the ground in Afghanistan the ability 
to come to the United States. To be eligible, new applicants must 
demonstrate at least 2 years of faithful and valuable service. To 
receive a visa, they must also clear a rigorous screening process that 
includes an independent verification of their service and then an 
intensive interagency security review.
  People may ask: Who are these Afghans? Let me give a few examples of 
the extraordinary service they have provided.
  The first person I will talk about--and I can't use his name for 
privacy and security reasons--worked as an interpreter for U.S. Special 
Operations Command, SOCOM, from 2005 to 2016--11 years. He originally 
applied for a special immigrant visa in 2012 and continued to work for 
SOCOM during the interim. One of the applicant's direct supervisors, 
the commander of 1st Battalion, Third Special Forces Group, stated that 
the applicant's brother was murdered by extremists--probably Taliban--
due to the applicant's work for the U.S. Government, and the applicant 
himself has been wounded several times while serving.
  A second individual worked as the head interpreter for a provincial 
reconstruction team, or PRT team, for years. Because of his service, 
his children can't go to school and the lives of his family members are 
in danger. The applicant's PRT commander was one of multiple direct 
Defense Department supervisors to submit letters of recommendations on 
his behalf testifying to his loyal and valued service.
  A third interpreter served the Defense Department from 2008 to 2015. 
He left work in December following an IED attack which robbed him of 
one eye and his vision in the other. He applied for his special 
immigrant visa after being wounded and is in the beginning stages of 
the extensive interagency vetting process.
  Clearly, the service of these individuals has been critical to our 
successes in Afghanistan, and in at least a handful of other cases, SIV 
recipients' commitment to the U.S. mission was so strong that they 
found ways to contribute even after they arrived in the United States. 
One promptly enlisted in the Armed Forces and later worked as a 
cultural adviser to the U.S. military. Another graduated from Indiana 
University and Georgetown and has worked as an instructor at the 
Defense Language Institute. A third, who worked as a senior adviser at 
the U.S. Embassy, now serves on the board of a nonprofit, working to 
promote a safe and stable Afghanistan.
  These contributions in Afghanistan and beyond help explain why senior 
U.S. military officers and diplomats are so supportive of the Afghan 
SIV Program.
  Here is what the current commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, 
General Nicholson, wrote recently about the need to reauthorize the SIV 
Program:

       These men and women who have risked their lives and have 
     sacrificed much for the betterment of Afghanistan deserve our 
     continued commitment. Failure to adequately demonstrate a 
     shared understanding of their sacrifices and honor our 
     commitment to any Afghan who supports the International 
     Security Assistance Force and Resolute Support missions could 
     have grave consequences for these individuals and bolster the 
     propaganda of our enemies. . . . Continuing our promise of 
     the American dream is more than in our national interest, it 
     is a testament to our decency and the long-standing tradition 
     of honoring our allies.

  Last year, General Nicholson's predecessor, General Campbell, wrote a 
similar letter affirming his strongest support for the SIV Program and 
urging Congress to ``ensure that the continuation of the SIV program 
remains a prominent part of any future legislation on our efforts in 
Afghanistan,'' adding that the program ``is crucial to our ability to 
protect those who have helped us so much.''
  Their view is shared by senior diplomats as well. Ambassador Ryan 
Crocker, who served in Afghanistan from 2011 to 2012, recently wrote 
that ``taking care of those who took care of us is not just an act of 
basic decency, it is also in our national interest. American 
credibility matters. Abandoning these allies would tarnish our 
reputation and endanger those we are today asking to serve alongside 
U.S. forces and diplomats.
  I see that my colleague Senator McCain is on the floor. I know my 
colleague remembers, as I do, watching all of those Vietnamese holding 
on to those helicopters that were leaving when America pulled out of 
Vietnam because they knew what their fate was going to be once America 
left that country. That is not something we can allow to happen in 
future conflicts. When we make a promise to those people who helped us 
on the ground, we need to abide by that promise. We need to make sure 
those people who helped our service men and women are able to get to 
this country and are not killed by the Taliban and other enemies of the 
United States and Afghanistan.
  Yet, despite these compelling cases and despite the persuasive 
arguments of our senior military and civilian leaders, the Senate NDAA 
does not currently reauthorize and extend the SIV Program or allow for 
additional visas because of the objections of some few in this body. 
This is particularly problematic because we are going to issue all of 
those unallocated SIVs by the end of this year even while there are 
thousands of Afghans at some stage in the application process and new 
applicants still beginning. In effect, this means that without 
congressional action, the SIV Program will sunset around December and 
thousands of Afghans who have stood alongside our military and other 
government personnel are at severe risk. I hope this body will decide 
that this is unacceptable and that we have to make sure we support 
those people who have supported our men and women on the ground and who 
have, in fact, died to support our men and women on the ground.
  I am happy to join Senator McCain and Senator Jack Reed, the chair 
and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, in trying to pass 
this amendment and make sure we support those people who supported us.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will be brief.
  I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for her continued advocacy for 
these individuals who literally placed their lives on the line to 
assist us in combating the forces we have been struggling against for 
now these many years. These individuals deserve our thanks, but more 
importantly, they deserve the ability to come to the United States of 
America. According to our military leaders, their lives are in danger. 
They are the first target of the enemy because the enemy wants revenge 
against those who helped Americans, and there is no doubt in the minds 
of our military leaders that these individuals literally saved the 
lives of the men and women who are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq on 
our behalf.
  I believe we should actually have a voice vote, and if necessary, 
have a

[[Page 7942]]

vote if there is any controversy associated with this legislation.
  If America is going to seek the assistance of individuals who are 
willing to help us and then abandon them, then we have a very serious 
moral problem.
  I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for her continued advocacy. I 
hope we can get this issue resolved as soon as possible.
  I yield the floor.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the National Defense Authorization Act 
before us is important for our troops, wounded warriors and veterans, 
and national security.
  One way it will help keep Americans safe is by renewing clear 
prohibitions on President Obama's ability to move dangerous Guantanamo 
terrorists into our country or release them to unstable regions like 
Libya, Yemen, and Somalia.
  Our country faces the most ``diverse and complex array of crises'' 
since World War II, as Henry Kissinger observed last year, but 
President Obama nonetheless seems focused on pursuing a stale campaign 
pledge from 2008. The President should spend his remaining months in 
office working to defeat ISIS. He should work with us to prepare the 
next administration for the threats that he is going to leave behind. 
He should not waste another minute on his myopic Guantanamo crusade.
  Just about every detainee that could feasibly be released from the 
secure detention facility has already been released. Some have already 
returned to the fight, just as we feared. Some have even taken more 
innocent American life, according to the Obama administration. But the 
bottom line is this. The hard core terrorists who do remain are among 
the worst of the worst--the worst of the worst.
  Here is how President Obama's own Secretary of Defense put it:

       [T]here are people in Gitmo who are so dangerous that we 
     cannot transfer them to the custody of another government no 
     matter how much we trust that government. I can't assure the 
     President that it would be safe to do that.

  There is Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind 9/11. He has 
declared himself the enemy of the United States. There is the 9/11 
coordinator who was planning even more strikes when he was captured. 
There is Bin Laden's former bodyguard, the terrorist who helped with 
the bombing of the USS Cole and trained to be a suicide hijacker for 
what was to be the Southeast Asia portion of the 9/11 attacks. These 
terrorists are among the worst of the worst. They belong at a secure 
detention facility, not in facilities here in our own communities, not 
in unstable countries where they are liable to rejoin the fight and to 
take even more innocent life.
  Have no doubt, there are detainees who would almost certainly rejoin 
terrorist organizations if given that opportunity. Here is what the 
Office of the Director of National Intelligence found in a report just 
this year: ``Based on trends identified during the past 11 years, we 
assess that some detainees currently at [Gitmo] will seek to reengage 
in terrorist or insurgent activities after they are transferred.''
  So, look, the next Commander in Chief, whether Democrat or 
Republican, will assume office confronting a complex and varied array 
of threats. That is why we must use the remaining months of the Obama 
administration as a year of transition to better posture the incoming 
administration and our country. What we should not be doing is making 
it even more challenging for the next President to meet these threats.
  Releasing hard core terrorists was a bad idea when Obama was 
campaigning in 2008, and it is even a worse idea today. We live in a 
complex world of complex threats. The NDAA before us will renew clear 
prohibitions against administration attempts to transfer these 
terrorists to the United States on its way out the door. We don't need 
to close a secure detention center. We need to ensure the American 
people are protected. Passing the legislation before us represents an 
important step in that direction. It will help position our military to 
confront the challenges of tomorrow. It will help support the men and 
women serving in harm's way today.
  I want to thank Chairman McCain of the Armed Services Committee for 
his extraordinary work on this very important bill, and I thank Senator 
Reed, the ranking member, as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, do the math. A Federal prisoner held in a 
Federal prison in America today costs us about $30,000 a year. The most 
serious and dangerous criminal prisoners held in the Federal prison 
system are put in supermax facilities for $86,000 a year. That is the 
cost. Not a single prisoner has ever escaped from a supermax facility 
in the United States--ever. It costs $30,000 for routine prisoners and 
$86,000 for the most dangerous.
  What does it cost us to incarcerate one detainee each year at 
Guantanamo? It costs $5 million apiece--$5 million for each detainee. 
The budget to keep Guantanamo open is about $500 million a year, and we 
have fewer than 100 detainees there, and there is a request for another 
$200 million in construction at Guantanamo. So when Senators come to 
the floor and say we have got to keep Guantanamo open for fewer than 
100 detainees, one obviously has to ask the question: Is there another 
place they can be held just as safely, just as securely, at 
considerably less cost? The answer is obvious. The answer is clear. The 
supermax Federal prisons can hold anyone convicted of terrorism, serial 
murder, or heinous crimes, and can hold them securely without any fear 
of escape.
  The argument was made by the Senator from Kentucky: Well, if we are 
going to put terrorists in prisons across America instead of 
Guantanamo, that is a danger to the community. Really?
  I represent the State of Illinois. We have the Marion Federal Prison 
in southern Illinois. We have a lot of good men and women who work 
there. What are we doing? For $30,000 a year, we are holding convicted 
terrorists in the Marion Federal prison. I have been a Senator for 
Illinois for 20 years. How many times have I received complaints that 
terrorists were being incarcerated at the Marion Federal penitentiary? 
None--not one, not one time.
  So for the symbol of maintaining Guantanamo, we are going to continue 
to spend $5 million a year per detainee. This bill before us, the 
Defense authorization bill, will continue that.
  If we are looking to save some money that taxpayers are giving to our 
government and perhaps should be spent in better ways, let's start with 
Guantanamo. The President is right that if they are a danger to America 
and the world, they could be safely held in other prisons across the 
United States at a fraction of the cost of what we are spending at 
Guantanamo. Those who call themselves fiscal conservatives cannot 
ignore that obvious argument.
  Let me say a word. I support Senator Shaheen's provision when it 
comes to the Afghans who helped us. It is a good provision. These men 
and women risked their lives for us and for the men and women in 
uniform. We need to allow them to come safely to the United States and 
be in a position where they can have peace of mind that they are not 
going to be killed because they are friends of America. I think her 
provision is a good one. I am anxious to support it.
  Let me just say on the state of play on amendments that I have an 
amendment that I consider to be very important. I offered it over a 
week ago, so Members have had more than enough time to take a look at 
it. I will describe it in very simple terms, instead of going into a 
long explanation, although I certainly have one ready.
  Basically, within this bill--and S. 2943, the National Defense 
Authorization Act, is a big bill--there is about $524 billion in 
spending for our Department of Defense. I want America to always be 
safe, always have the best, and I want us to invest in the men and 
women of our military because we believe in them, their families, and 
our veterans.

[[Page 7943]]

  There is a provision in this bill, though, that troubles me greatly. 
It is an effort to eliminate a program known as the Congressionally 
Directed Medical Research Programs. How big is this medical research 
program? It is $1.3 billion. It is less than two-tenths of 1 percent of 
the total expenditure for the Department of Defense.
  Is it important? I think it is very important. For 25 years, the 
Department of Defense medical research has come through with 
breakthrough financing to eliminate concerns, and it gives hope to 
members of the military, their families, and to everybody living across 
America.
  I remember when it started. I was a Member of the House of 
Representatives. It was 1992. One group came forward--the Breast Cancer 
Coalition. They said: We need a reliable place to turn for a steady 
investment in breast cancer research. That is what started the program.
  It is true that breast cancer is not limited to the military. But it 
is also true that there is a higher incidence of breast cancer among 
women in our military than in the general population for reasons we 
still don't understand. So is this an important issue to the military 
and the rest of America? Of course, it is. Over the last 25 years, we 
have invested more than $3 billion in breast cancer research through 
this program. Has it been worth it? I can tell you it has. Through 
their research, they developed a drug called Herceptin. The Department 
of Defense medical research developed this drug Herceptin to fight 
breast cancer.
  One of my colleagues here in the Senate told me this morning that the 
life of his wife was saved by this drug, Herceptin. I was downstairs 
for a press conference just a few minutes ago. Another woman came up to 
me and said that her life was saved. She was diagnosed with breast 
cancer, and Herceptin saved her life. That was a part of the investment 
in the Department of Defense medical research program that paid off. I 
can go on--and I will later--about other investments that have paid 
off, not just for the members of the military and their families but 
for all of America.
  What is proposed in this bill is the largest cut in medical research 
since sequestration in Congress. We asked the Department of Defense: If 
the provisions of this bill that are being asked for are put in place, 
what impact will it have on medical research programs in the Department 
of Defense? They said it would effectively eliminate them.
  This proposal in this bill will swamp medical research programs in 
the Department of Defense with more redtape than they have ever seen. 
An example of this is that this Department of Defense authorization 
bill calls for an annual audit of every entity applying for medical 
research grants from the Department of Defense. The audit requirements 
are the same as for the largest defense contractors in the United 
States. We have never held other entities other than the largest 
defense contractors to these standards. It will require an additional 
2,400 audits a year by the Department of Defense.
  Well, does the agency that does the auditing have the extra 
personnel? Do they have work that needs to be done? It turns out that 
they have $43 billion in existing contracts that have not been audited, 
and this bill will pile on 2,400 more audits. It will slow down any 
effort to promote medical research, and it will dramatically increase 
the overhead costs for that medical research.
  Surely, there must be some scandal in this program that led to the 
conclusion that we need all this redtape. But the answer is no. The 
close scrutiny and investigation of the Institute of Medicine and other 
entities have found that this program over the years has been a good 
program. It has had some mistakes, but only a handful when you look at 
the thousands of medical research grants that have been given.
  I am going to ask for an opportunity to offer this amendment to 
strike the provisions which basically kill the Department of Defense 
medical research program that is directed by Congress.
  We don't earmark what entities are going to get the grants. It is a 
competitive, peer-reviewed process. I want to make sure this amendment 
gets a vote, and, after that vote, I will be more than happy to move 
forward on all the amendments on this bill. It is an important bill, 
and I hope we can pass it at the end of the day.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, let me assure the Senator from Illinois 
that we were trying to get the language of a companion amendment to his 
amendment approved by that side of the aisle so that we can move 
forward with the amendment of the Senator from Illinois. Hopefully, we 
can get that language as soon as possible so that we can take up the 
formal debate on his amendment.
  In the meantime, in response to the comments of the Senator from 
Illinois, I have seen the latest polling data, and the approval of 
Congress is at about 14 percent--something like that. I have not met 
anyone lately from the 14 percent that approve of Congress.
  One of the major reasons is, of course, that they believe we have 
wasted their defense dollars by the billions and have wasted their 
taxpayer dollars by the billions. There is no greater example of that 
than what has happened with the so-called medical research.
  Every single one of these dollars probably goes to a worthy cause. 
Unfortunately, about 90 to 95 percent of that money has nothing to do 
with defense.
  Why would the Senator from Illinois and so many, overwhelmingly, take 
the money that is earmarked for the men and women who are serving when 
the effects of sequestration are causing our leadership in the military 
to say that we are on the ragged edge of our capability to defend the 
Nation and when the Commandant of the Marine Corps and the Chief of 
Staff of the Army have said that we are putting the lives of Americans 
at greater risk because we don't have sufficient funding. Instead, we 
are taking $2 billion out of defense money and putting it into programs 
that have nothing to do with defense. Why is that?
  One would ask why would Congress take money from defense and put 
those monies into programs that have nothing to do with defense? It is 
called the Willie Sutton syndrome. That is when the famous bank robber 
was asked why he robbed banks. He said, ``That is where the money is.'' 
That is exactly what we are seeing here.
  We saw the Willie Sutton syndrome begin in 1992. In 1992, there was 
$25 million that was designated for medical research. That was $25 
million in 1992. Today, we now are going to have almost--last year, the 
funding increased by 4,000 percent, from $25 million in 1992 to $1 
billion last year. So if you ever have seen a graphic example of the 
Willie Sutton syndrome, it has to be this. Is there anyone who is 
opposed to breast cancer research? Is there anyone who is opposed to 
medical research for so many important challenges to the health of our 
Nation? Of course not. Of course not.
  But what the Senator from Illinois and the appropriators have done, 
year after year after year, is exactly this: OK. Here we go. There is 
$200 million. Here we are--reconstructive transplants, genetic studies 
of food allergies, cooperative epilepsy, chiropractic clinical trials, 
muscular dystrophy, peer-reviewed vision, peer-reviewed Alzheimer's, 
bone marrow failure, multiple sclerosis, and on and on.
  All of these are worthy causes. They have nothing to do with the 
defense of this Nation. That is the problem with this. I will probably 
lose this vote. The Senator from Illinois will probably succeed because 
there are so many special interests that are involved. But don't say 
this is for the defense of this Nation. What it is all about is finding 
money from the largest single appropriations bill to put into causes 
that, by all objective observers, should be taken out of the Health and 
Human Services account.
  Unfortunately, there is not enough money in the Health and Human 
Services account. So guess what. Take it out of defense. Meanwhile, we 
don't have enough troops trained, and we don't have enough to pay for 
their deployments. In case you missed it, there

[[Page 7944]]

are stories about the squadron down in South Carolina--marines--where 
they are robbing parts from planes, where an Air Force squadron comes 
back with most of their aircraft not capable of flying, with only two 
of our brigade combat teams able to be in the first category of 
readiness--only two--because they don't have enough money for training 
and operations and maintenance.
  But we are going to take billions out, and we are going to give it to 
autism, lung cancer, ovarian cancer. All of those are worthy causes. 
Now we have lobbyists from all over the Nation coming up: Oh, they are 
going to take away money from ``fill in the blank.'' They are all 
angry. I am not trying to take the money from them. I am saying that 
the money should not come out of defense. I am saying that to defend 
this Nation, every single dollar is important to the men and women who 
are defending this Nation and fighting and dying as we speak.
  So I congratulate the Senator from Illinois as every year, just 
about, the money for medical research has gone up from an initial $25 
million in 1992 to $1 billion this year, a 4,000-percent increase. Let 
me repeat. Spending on medical research at DOD--nearly 75 percent--has 
nothing to do with the military, and it has grown 4,000 percent since 
1992.
  Now we can talk to all the lobbyists who come in for these various 
and very important medical research projects and say: We took care of 
you. I say to the Senator from Illinois: Take care of them from where 
it should come, which is not out of defending this Nation. In 2006, the 
late Senator from the State of Alaska, Ted Stevens, under whose 
leadership the original funding for breast cancer was added, said that 
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--

  I am quoting Senator Stevens now.

       I confess, I am the one who made the first mistake years 
     ago. I am the one who suggested 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.

  I want to emphasize again that I will support funding for every 
single one of these projects. I will support it when it comes out of 
the right account and not from the backs of the men and women who are 
serving in the U.S. military. It has to stop. It has to stop. So this 
year, the NDAA prohibits the Secretary of Defense and the service 
Secretaries from funding or conducting a medical research and 
development project unless they certify that the project would protect, 
enhance, or restore the health and safety of members of the Armed 
Forces. It requires the medical research projects be open to 
competition and comply with DOD cost accounting standards.
  It does not seem to me that that is an outrageous demand. I know my 
colleagues are going to come and say: Oh, we need this money because of 
``fill in the blank,'' and this is vital to the health of America. I am 
all for that. But don't take it out of the ability of the young men and 
women to serve this Nation in uniform. That is what the amendment of 
the Senator from Illinois does.
  If this amendment passes, nearly $900 million in the defense budget 
will be used for medical research that is unrelated to defense and was 
not requested by the administration. One would think that if this is so 
vital, the administration would request it. They have not. They have 
not.
  If this amendment passes--and it will, I am confident--$900 million 
will be taken away from military servicemembers and their families. If 
this amendment passes, $900 million will not be used to provide a full 
2.1-percent pay raise for our troops. It will not be used to halt 
dangerous reductions in the size of our Army and Marine Corps. It will 
not be used to buy equipment so that our airmen don't have to steal 
parts from airplanes in the boneyard in Arizona to keep the oldest, 
smallest, and least ready Air Force in our history in the air.
  As I said, many of the supporters of this amendment have opposed 
lifting arbitrary spending caps on defense unless more money is made 
available for nondefense needs. So, the Senator from Illinois--if I get 
this straight--wants to add nearly $1 billion in spending for medical 
research but is also opposed to increasing spending to a level of last 
year for defense spending. That is interesting.
  With these caps still in place, which we are going to try to fix 
later on in this bill, the Senator wants to take nearly $1 billion of 
limited defense funding to spend on nondefense needs. So I say to my 
colleague, the Senator from Illinois: It is not that he is wrong to 
support medical research. No one is attacking that. I can guarantee 
you, the first thing the Senator from Illinois is going to say: Well, 
we are going to take this money away from medical research. I am not. I 
am saying that it shouldn't come from the backs of the men and women 
who are serving this Nation.
  I would ask him not to say that because it is not the case. If he 
wants to add that money into the Health and Human Services account, I 
will support the amendment. I will support it. I will speak in favor of 
it. He has proposed the wrong amendment to support medical research. 
Instead of proposing to take away $900 million from our military 
servicemembers, he should be proposing a way to begin the long-overdue 
process of shifting the hundreds of millions of dollars of nonmilitary 
medical research spending out of the Department of Defense and into the 
appropriate civilian departments and agencies of our government.
  Let me be clear again. This debate is not about the value of this 
medical research or whether Congress should support it. Any person who 
has reached my age likely has some firsthand experience with the 
miracles of modern medicine and the gratitude for all who support it. I 
am sure every Senator understands the value of medical research to 
Americans suffering from these diseases, to the families and friends 
who care for them, and all those who know the pain and grief of losing 
a loved one.
  But this research does not belong in the Department of Defense. It 
belongs in civilian departments and agencies of our government. So I 
say to my colleagues, the NDAA 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 on the battlefield, both 
physically and mentally.
  This amendment would harm 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. It would 
continue to put decisionmaking about medical research in the hands of 
lobbyists and politicians instead of medical experts where it belongs.
  So what is happening right now as we speak? Phones are ringing off 
the hook: We need this money for ``fill in the blank.'' We have to have 
this money. It is the end of Western civilization unless we get it. I 
support every single one of these programs. There is not a single one 
that I would not support funding for. But when you take it away from 
the men and women who are serving in the military for nonmilitary 
purposes, I say it is wrong.
  I will be glad to have the vote as soon as the other side clears our 
amendment process. But, again, I ask my colleagues: Don't distort this 
debate by saying we are trying to take away this medical research. What 
we are trying to say with the bill is that we are trying to do 
everything we can to take every defense dollar and make sure that we 
help the men and women who are serving in conflicts that are taking 
place throughout the world.
  We are not against the reason it was adopted by the Armed Services 
Committee--against this funding. We are against where it is coming 
from. So

[[Page 7945]]

let's do something a little courageous for a change around here. Let's 
say: No, we will not take this money out of defense, but we will take 
it out of other accounts which are under the responsibility of the 
Senate and the Congress of the United States. That is all I am asking 
for. That is all.
  Obviously it probably will not happen. Every advocate for every one 
of those programs has now been fired up because they have been told 
that we are going to take away their money. We are not going to take 
away their money; we want their money coming from the right place. I 
would even support increases in some of this spending, but it is coming 
from the wrong place.
  As I said at the beginning of my remarks, it is the Willy Sutton 
syndrome, from $25 million in 1992 all the way up to here--all the way 
here--now $1 billion, a 4,000-percent increase. So I am sure that 
Senator after Senator will come to the floor: Oh, no. We can't take 
away this money from ``fill in the blank.'' This is terrible for us to 
do this. It is not terrible for us to do this.
  The right thing to do is not to deprive the men and women who are 
serving in the military of $1 billion that is badly needed for 
readiness and for operations to keep them safe. That is what this 
debate is all about. I expect to lose it.
  I congratulate the lobbyists ahead of time. I congratulate the 
Senator from Illinois ahead of time. But don't be surprised when the 
American people someday rise up against this process where we 
appropriate $1 billion for something under the name of national defense 
that has nothing to do with national defense.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this Senator will never apologize for 
medical research--never. I certainly understand the National Institutes 
of Health have the primary responsibility for medical research. I am 
pleased to report that at this moment in the subcommittee, we are 
marking up an increase of more than 5 percent in the funding for that 
important agency.
  I thank Senator Blunt from the other side of the aisle and Senator 
Murray from our side of the aisle for finding the resources for that. 
But to argue that because we are putting money into the National 
Institutes of Health we can take money away from the Department of 
Defense ignores the obvious. We take money away from the Department of 
Defense medical research program at the expense of men and women in the 
military, their families, and veterans.
  Look at the example the Senator from Arizona used. He stood and he 
pointed to his chart and he said: Well, there is even spending here for 
epilepsy and seizures. Now, why would that be? We have to spend money 
on our military and their issues.
  Well, let's take a look. Since the year 2000, over 300,000 Active-
Duty servicemembers have experienced a traumatic brain injury. 
Currently, the prevalence of post-traumatic epilepsy among those 
members who have suffered a brain injury is unknown. There are few risk 
factors that are known to guide decisionmaking in diagnosing the 
treatment of the disease. According to the American Epilepsy Society, 
over 50 percent of TBI victims--these are military members who have 
been exposed to traumatic brain injury with penetrating head injury 
from the Korean and Vietnam wars--have developed post-traumatic 
epilepsy. For the Senator from Arizona to point to this as one of the 
wasteful areas of medical research is to ignore the obvious: that 
300,000 of our men and women in uniform have suffered from traumatic 
brain injury. And we know from past experience that many of them end up 
with post-traumatic epilepsy. To argue, then, that this medical 
research into epilepsy and seizures has no application or value to 
members of the military is basically to ignore the obvious.
  What we have tried to do in establishing this program is, first, we 
cannot earmark that any grant be given to any institution. All we can 
do is suggest to the Department of Defense areas that we think have 
relevance to our military. They then have to make the decision. Each 
and every grant has to pass a threshold requirement that it have 
relevance to the military and their health.
  Well, it turns out there are many things that are concerning. Would 
you guess that prostate cancer is a major concern in the military as 
opposed to the rest of our population? You should because the incidence 
of prostate cancer among those who serve in the military is higher than 
it is in the general population. Why is that? Is it an exposure to 
something while they served? Is there something we can do to spare 
military families from this cancer by doing basic research? I am not 
going to apologize for that, nor am I going to apologize for the breast 
cancer commitment that has been made by this Department of Defense 
medical research program.
  The Senator from Arizona is correct. Groups are coming to us and 
saying: This Department of Defense medical research is absolutely 
essential.
  I just had a press conference with the Breast Cancer Coalition. There 
has been $3 billion invested in breast cancer research through the 
Department of Defense over the last 24 years. As I said earlier, it led 
to the development of a new drug that saved the lives of breast cancer 
victims--Herceptin. The drug has saved lives. To argue that this money 
was not well spent, should have been in another category, didn't apply 
here and there--let's look beyond that. Let's consider the lives saved, 
not just of men and women across America but of members of families of 
those who have served our country.
  The list goes on and on. I could spend the next hour or more going 
through every single one of them. The provision of the Senator from 
Arizona in his own bill is designed to eliminate the medical research 
programs at the Department of Defense. That is not my conclusion; that 
is the conclusion of the Department of Defense. He has put in so much 
redtape and so many obstacles and added so much overhead and so much 
delay that he will accomplish his goal of killing off medical research 
at the Department of Defense directed by Congress. That would be a 
terrible outcome--a terrible outcome for people who are counting on 
this research.
  No apologies. I am for increasing the money at the National 
Institutes of Health. I have said that already. And I am for increasing 
money at the Department of Defense. It has been money well spent and 
well invested for the men and women of our military.
  I might add and let me first acknowledge that my colleague from 
Arizona has a distinguished record serving the United States in our 
U.S. Navy. We all know his heroic story and what he went through. So I 
am not questioning his commitment to the military in any way 
whatsoever. But I will tell you that veterans organizations and others 
stand by my position on this issue. When we had the press conference 
earlier, it wasn't just the Breast Cancer Coalition; the Disabled 
American Veterans was also there asking us to defeat this provision in 
the bill that would put an end to the Department of Defense medical 
research programs.
  For the good of these families, all of the members of these families 
in the military, as well as our veterans, let's not walk away from this 
fundamental research.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Illinois and I 
have pretty well ventilated this issue, and once we get an agreement on 
votes, we could schedule a vote on it. I think we are very well aware 
of each other's positions. I have been talking about this issue for 
quite a period of time, as I watch our defense spending go down and our 
``medical research'' go up.
  The argument of the Senator from Illinois is that men and women in 
the military are subject to all of these various health challenges, 
ranging from arthritis to vascular malfunctions, et cetera, because 
they are Americans, because they are human beings? Yes, we agree that 
members of the military are subject to all of these needs and earmarks 
for various illnesses that affect Americans.
  And by the way, traumatic brain injury causes a whole lot of things. 
So to

[[Page 7946]]

say that epilepsy is the result of traumatic brain injury, there are 
all kinds of things that are the result of traumatic brain injury, and 
I strongly support funding--and so have many others--for research on 
traumatic brain injury. We know the terrible effects of that on our 
veterans. But there are, at least on this list, 50 different diseases 
and medical challenges, and connecting that all to defense takes a leap 
of the imagination and is, obviously, ridiculous. It is ridiculous. 
Here we have pancreatic cancer, Parkinson's, and all of these. Veterans 
are subject to those, yes, but it should not be in the Defense bill and 
it should not be taken out of defense money, particularly in this 
period of need.
  So if the Disabled American Veterans and every veteran organization 
is told they will not have funding for these programs, of course they 
are going to object to this provision in the bill. But if they are told 
the truth--and the truth is that they should get this money but it 
shouldn't be taken out of defense--most of these veterans would like to 
see it not taken out of defense; they would like to see it taken out of 
where it belongs.
  So, as I say, I am sure there is press conference after press 
conference rallying all of these people because they are being told 
they won't get the funding, and I can understand that, but that is not 
what this Senator wants and what America should have, which is the 
funding taken out of the accounts of which there is the responsibility 
of the various committees and subcommittees in Congress and in the 
Committee on Appropriations. That is what this is all about.
  So all I can say is that, as I predicted, the Senator from Illinois 
raises the issue of all of these things that will lose money. It is not 
that they will lose money. They will get the money if you do the right 
thing in the Committee on Appropriations, which is taking it out of the 
right accounts. To stretch the imagination to say that all of these are 
because of the men and women in the military is, at best, disingenuous.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask for 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant minority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the total for the Department of Defense 
medical research programs we are discussing amounts to less than 0.2 
percent of this total budget--less than two-tenths of 1 percent--and 
the Senator from Arizona is arguing that we are wasting money that 
could otherwise be spent in more valuable ways for our military. We are 
not wasting money; we are investing in medical research programs that 
serve our military, their families, and our veterans, and I will never 
apologize for that.
  Yes, these groups are upset because they have seen the progress that 
has been made with these investments, coordinating with the NIH and the 
Institute of Medicine. They have done the right thing. They have found 
cures, they have relieved the problems and challenges facing our 
military, their families, and the veterans who have served.
  In terms of whether the amendment the Senator has already put into 
the bill is going to have any negative impact on Department of Defense 
medical research, let me quote the Department of Defense and what they 
said about the language from Chairman McCain: These changes would 
drastically delay the awards, risking the timely obligation of funds, 
significantly increase the effort and cost for both the recipients and 
the Federal Government. With the additional audit services needed, 
documentation that recipients would be required to provide, changes to 
recipients' accounting systems, the scientific programs would be 
severely impacted. Massive confusion would follow. Most likely, 
recipients would not want to do business with the Department of 
Defense. These issues would lead to the failure of the Congressionally 
Directed Medical Research Program.
  If the Senator wanted to come and just say ``Put an end to it,'' that 
would be bold, that would be breathtaking, but it would be direct and 
it would be honest. What he has done is cover it in redtape. I am in 
favor of research, not redtape. There is no need to kill off these 
critical medical research programs for our military and our veterans.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MANCHIN addressed the Chair.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I think I have precedence.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I just want to say again that there are 
various accounts in the appropriations process that are directly 
related to the issues that have now been inserted in the Department of 
Defense authorization bill. That is what this is all about, and that is 
all it is all about.
  We can talk about all of the compelling needs and the terrible 
stories of people who have been afflicted by these various injuries and 
challenges to their health, but the fact is, it is coming from the 
wrong place, and that is what this is all about.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I just want to say that after listening 
to both my colleagues, who are passionate about this issue, they are 
both right. They are both right. If we had a tax plan--a competitive 
tax plan--that took care of our priorities based on our values, they 
would both be funded properly. That is what we have to get to. We have 
to get past picking and choosing and basically take care of the values 
we have as Americans, so I hope we can come together on that.


                            Opioid Epidemic

  Mr. President, I am rising today because we have reached another 
crisis point in our country. In 2014 we had almost 19,000 people die 
due to opioid prescription drug overdose. These are legal 
prescriptions. These are by companies that basically developed products 
legally. We have the FDA that basically said that we should use it, 
that it is good for us, and our doctors were saying this is what we 
should do. So basically we have an epidemic on our hands from products 
we all believed were going to help us. We had 16 percent more people 
die in 2014 than in 2013. We have lost 200,000 Americans since 1999--
200,000. If that is not an epidemic, I don't know what is. I really 
don't know.
  Unfortunately, a major barrier to those suffering opioid addiction--
these are legal prescription drugs--is insufficient access to substance 
abuse treatment centers. Between 2009 and 2013, only 22 percent of 
those who were suffering from addiction could find treatment--only 22 
percent.
  For so long, we kind of put our heads in the sand and basically 
thought that this was a crime, that it wasn't basically an illness--an 
illness that we now have come to understand needs treatment. We are way 
behind the scale on this.
  In my State of West Virginia, 42,000 West Virginians, including 4,000 
youth--these are kids younger than 16 years of age--sought treatment 
for legal abuse but failed to find it. Think about this: If you are a 
parent or a grandparent and your kids are begging for help, the only 
way they can find any help today is to get them arrested, get a felony 
on them, and then the judge will send them to drug court. That is it. 
That is the alternative. That is not a solution we as Americans should 
be settling for.
  The largest long-term facility in West Virginia with more than 100 
beds is Recovery Point. It is run by all former addicts. These were 
people whose lives were basically destroyed. They got together and 
said: We can help people. We can save them. There is mentoring. They 
bring them in, and it is a yearlong program. It has the greatest 
success rate of anything else we have in our State.
  In 2014 about 15,000 West Virginians got some sort of treatment for 
drug or alcohol abuse, but nearly 60,000 people went untreated because 
they couldn't find it or couldn't afford it. Based on conversations 
with our State police and all law enforcement in the State of West 
Virginia, 8 out of every 10 calls they are summoned to for some kind of 
criminal activity is due to drugs, some form of drugs.

[[Page 7947]]

  All of our young students here will be able to identify with this and 
the people who have problems.
  These people recognize they need help and they have been turned away.
  I have introduced a piece of legislation with quite a few of my 
colleagues. I would hope all of my colleagues in this body would look 
at it very seriously. It is called LifeBOAT. LifeBOAT basically simply 
says this: We need to have a fee on all opiates. The reason for this 
was that in the 1980s, we were told this was a wonder drug. It will 
relieve us of pain 24 hours--not addictive at all. Well, we know what 
happened there. That wasn't effective and it wasn't accurate.
  What we are asking for is one penny, one penny per milligram on all 
opiate prescriptions, just one penny. That one penny will give 
continuous funding for treatment centers around the country. That will 
bring in about $1.5 billion to $2 billion a year. I would hope it 
wouldn't bring in anything. That would mean we wouldn't have rampant 
addictions as we have throughout the country.
  This is the LifeBOAT. We would hope people would get on board. I have 
asked my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. This is not a tax. 
It is basically a treatment plan. We have fees we charge for alcohol. 
We have a fee for cigarettes--nothing for opiates. This is destroying 
as many, if not more, lives. All of this is a commonsense approach 
forward.
  I say to all of my colleagues, there will not be a Democratic or a 
Republican family who will hold it against you for trying to find a 
treatment program for their child or a loved one or someone in their 
family.
  I have come to the floor every week to read letters from people who 
have been affected and their lives have been changed. I have one from 
my State of West Virginia, and she writes:

       In Elementary school (I believe 4th grade) my daughter 
     became a cheerleader for Pop Warner Football.
       Then 6th through 8th she cheered for the Middle School. Her 
     Senior year she cheered for High School as well. She also 
     played Volleyball for the High School and with an adult 
     league, and Basketball for a Jerry West league.
       She had excellent grades in school, many friends and a 
     great personality. To say she was well rounded is pretty 
     accurate.
       I am not quite sure where things went wrong. How we have 
     ended up where we are today.
       Today, and for several years now, my daughter is a drug 
     addict. At one time she was prescribed antidepressants, then 
     nerve pills, then she broadened to her own choices. She has 
     tried many drugs but her choice is opiates.

  Legal prescription opiates.

       She is the mother of our first 2 grandbabies that are now 
     in the custody of family members due to her drug use.

  The home is unfit for the children to be raised in. Continuing:

       She is also a sister, aunt, granddaughter, cousin, niece 
     and friend to many. And the wife of an addict. She has been 
     in and out of jail, court and community corrections several 
     times.
       I have lost many nights of sleep waiting for a knock at our 
     door or a phone call to tell me I need to identify my 
     daughter. Thankfully, I am a lucky one so far that has not 
     had to do that. Others have not been as fortunate.
       She has been homeless and sleeping in her car for almost a 
     year except for the nights I could beg for her to come stay 
     with us.
       Her husband has stole from my family and is not allowed on 
     any of our properties. She feels obligated into staying by 
     his side.

  I don't know why.

       She has had several seizure episodes that were drug 
     related. One time she was at a local grocery store with our 
     granddaughter. She was transported by an ambulance after her 
     4 year old daughter screamed for help.

  A 4-year-old daughter screaming for help for a mother who has had an 
overdose and addiction. Continuing:

       She went to a 10-day detox. Which ended up being a waste--

  We know that 10 days or a month doesn't do a thing--

     because there was not a place for her to go for rehab after 
     that.
       One time she got out of jail and thought she could kick 
     this habit on her own. She couldn't, and back to jail she 
     went.
       Right now she is in a grant funded long term facility.

  If you talk to any people in addiction treatment, it takes a minimum 
of 1 year to get them through.

       She has been there almost a month. My heart and hopes are 
     high.
       I pray for her and those like her on a daily basis. 
     Addiction is such a cruel and punishing way of life. It 
     leaves scars inside and out.

  All I am asking for is this LifeBOAT piece of legislation that will 
give us a lifeboat to help families who are desperately in need. I 
would hope everyone would consider this. It is not a burden on anybody. 
It is not a burden on people taking normal prescriptions. It is only 1 
penny per milligram on opiates produced, used, and consumed in the 
United States.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for the benefit of my colleagues, we are 
working on trying to set up a series of a few amendments, including the 
Durbin amendment and others. Hopefully, we will have that resolved 
within half an hour or so, so we can then schedule votes for today.
  I know my colleagues are aware that tomorrow the first part of the 
day is for the joint meeting, with an address by the Prime Minister of 
India, so that even shortens our time. We want to try to get as many 
amendments done as we can today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I speak on amendment No. 4260 to the 
National Defense Authorization Act, which would elevate U.S. Cyber 
Command to a combatant command.
  In 1986, Congress passed a law elevating and establishing U.S. 
Special Operations Command to address the rapidly growing need for 
special operators and to unify our forces. Think about that. Today they 
are now leading the effort against ISIS. There is another force quietly 
leading a battle against ISIS, and it is on a completely new 
battlefield. U.S. Cyber Command is one of our most important elements 
in the fight against terrorism today and tomorrow.
  I stand today with eight bipartisan cosponsors to my amendment, 
including the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. I thank them 
for their support. This includes Senators Warner, Bennet, Murkowski, 
Cardin, and Blumenthal, as well as Senators Gardner and Ernst.
  The Commander of Cyber Command recently testified before the Armed 
Services Committee, stating that an elevation to a combatant command 
``would allow them to be faster, generating better mission outcomes.''
  At a time when ISIS is rapidly recruiting online and developing 
technology like self-driving cars packed full of explosives, the United 
States needs to ensure that cyber and technology warfare is at the top 
of our priorities. U.S. Cyber Command needs to be able to react quickly 
and to engage the enemy effectively. Our troops need to be as effective 
online as they are in the air, in the land or at sea. To do all of 
that, we need to elevate them to a combatant command, where they will 
be reporting directly to the President of the United States through the 
Secretary of Defense.
  I have provided for a plan in this year's Defense appropriations bill 
to fund this in the future, and I am committed to ensuring the 
elevation of Cyber Command is successful. In the long run, we need to 
ensure that they have increased access to training, to top equipment, 
and to ensure their other commands are able to integrate the forces 
successfully.
  Right now as we debate the National Defense Authorization Act, we 
need to ensure that we give them the authority to defeat our 
adversaries, and that means elevation to a combatant command. The 
threat of a cyber attack is one of the fastest growing threats facing 
our Nation, and we cannot stand by as the Department of Defense delays 
to act on this urgent need.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment No. 4260, which will 
elevate U.S. Cyber Command to a combatant command.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, with regard to the previous discussion, I 
want

[[Page 7948]]

to point out to my colleagues, on this whole issue of a billion dollars 
that is being taken out of defense, the appropriate subcommittee on the 
Appropriations Committee and the authorizing committee is Labor, Health 
and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies. Certainly, as I 
mentioned before--and taken out of the National Institutes of Health 
account, for which a lot of money was already being appropriated. So 
there is an appropriate vehicle for these expenditures of funds of 
nearly $1 billion, and it is not the Department of Defense.
  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. CRUZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Texas Flooding

  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, my home State of Texas is strong and 
resilient. Texans aren't people who tire easily, and we certainly don't 
give up when the going gets tough, but that doesn't mean the State of 
Texas hasn't faced its share of adversity.
  Over the last few weeks, the resolve of our great State has been 
tested with historic flooding that has taken at least 16 lives across 
Texas. Among those 16 are 9 young soldiers at Fort Hood, 9 soldiers 
whose truck was overturned while crossing a flooded creek.
  Their lives were ended in that flooding. Their families have been 
torn asunder, not by combat losses far away. When brave young men and 
women sign up to defend this country, they expect--they understand the 
threat that enemies abroad might endanger them, but they shouldn't be 
losing their lives here at home in a sudden and unexpected accident 
that took the lives of nine soldiers in an instant. Those nine soldiers 
should be remembered: SPC Yingming Sun, SSG Miguel Angel Colonvazquez, 
SPC Christine Faith Armstrong, PFC Brandon Austin Banner, PFC Zachery 
Nathaniel Fuller, Private Isaac Lee Deleon, Private Eddy Raelaurin 
Gates, Private Tysheena Lynette James, and Cadet Mitchell Alexander 
Winey.
  All of us should remember those soldiers and every one of the 
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who risk their lives for us 
daily.
  Just yesterday on a plane flight from Texas, I had the pleasure of 
again meeting a young lieutenant whom I had met in the hospital at Fort 
Hood in 2014. He had been shot in the chest with a .45 in that tragic 
shooting that occurred. I must say it was so inspirational to see this 
young lieutenant healed, mobile, proudly serving our country, and 
energized. That is the spirit of our Armed Forces, and we should never 
forget their commitment to freedom.
  Heidi and I right now, along with millions of Americans, are lifting 
up in prayer those Texans who have lost their lives, who have lost 
their homes, and the families who are suffering due to this flooding. 
We are also lifting up the first responders who so bravely risk 
everything to keep us safe.
  In particular, I want to take a moment of praise for the Red Cross. I 
had the privilege yesterday of speaking with the CEO of the Red Cross 
to thank them directly for their efforts on the ground, helping people 
who are suffering, helping people who have lost their homes and who are 
struggling.
  She and I shared what we have seen in tragedy after tragedy after 
tragedy, which is that, in the face of disaster and in the face of 
adversity, Texans and Americans come together. There is a spirit of 
solidarity, a spirit of unity that the worse the tragedy, the more we 
come together and help our friend and neighbor, help our sister and 
brother. During these difficult times, Texans demonstrate that sharing 
spirit, and we are thankful to Americans across the country who are 
lifting us up in prayer.
  As the waters continue to recede and the wreckage is being cleared, 
my office will continue to work very closely with the local and State 
government officials, along with the entire Texas delegation, to help 
ensure a smooth recovery process, including offering--as I already 
have--my full support and assistance when Governor Abbott requests 
Federal aid for those afflicted by this disaster.
  While Texas continues to rebound from these torrential floods, our 
Nation is also flooded with circumstances that require the very same 
strength and resolve that we face in the face of tragedy. This week, 
the Senate continues debating the National Defense Authorization Act. 
This legislation reflects our Nation's military and national security 
priorities. The decisions we make today will affect not only our lives 
but those of future generations.
  We face serious times as a Nation. Our constitutional rights are 
under assault. We have economic stagnation, young people yearning for 
employment opportunities only to find none, and government regulations 
that crush innovations. Abroad and at home, the threat is growing each 
and every day of radical Islamic terrorists. In order to best ensure 
the future of our Nation, we must make sure America is secure.
  The most important constitutionally mandated responsibility of the 
Federal Government, the one authority that it must--not merely can--
exercise is to provide for the common defense. There is no better 
example of how egregiously we have strayed from our core function than 
the way in which our spending on defense has been held hostage year 
after year to the ever-increasing appetite for domestic spending by 
President Obama and his political allies. The programs they are forcing 
on the American people aren't necessary to protect our lives and 
safety. But funding our Nation's security is necessary, and it is in 
this spirit that I have approached my work on the National Defense 
Authorization Act. I look forward to continuing this debate with 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
  My goal for the NDAA is simple. We need to make sure our military is 
strong, our homeland is secure, and our interests abroad are protected. 
The NDAA shouldn't be a vehicle to further an agenda that has nothing 
to do with actually defending America.
  On the Senate Armed Services Committee, I was proud to work with my 
colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, in introducing and getting 
adopted 12 amendments--12 amendments that were included in this 
legislation that cover the range of policy issues from strengthening 
our ability to protect ourselves through missile defense, to improving 
our ability to stand with allies such as the nation of Taiwan, to 
improving our ability to deal with the growing threats from nations 
like Russia and China, to prohibiting joint military exercises with 
Cuba, to preventing the transfer of terrorists from Guantanamo to 
nations that are on the State Department's watch list. All of those 
were done working closely with colleagues, Republicans and often many 
Democrats. Yet there are still many issues I believe should be 
addressed in this legislation, and I want to highlight three of those 
issues--three amendments that I hope this full body will take up.
  The first is an amendment to increase spending on Israeli missile 
defense. This is an amendment on which I have been working very, very 
closely with the senior Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham.
  The second is an amendment to stop the Obama administration's plan to 
give away the Internet, to empower our enemies over the Internet. On 
this, I have been working closely with Senator Lee from Utah and 
Senator Lankford from Oklahoma.
  The third amendment I want to address is an amendment to strip the 
citizenship from any Americans who take up arms and join ISIS or other 
terrorist organizations waging jihad against the United States of 
America. In this, I have worked with a number of Senators, including 
Chairman Grassley of the Judiciary Committee.
  Each of these amendments addresses different policy components of our 
Nation's security. But they all share the ultimate objective of 
ensuring that America remains the strongest nation the world has ever 
known.
  The first amendment I have submitted and that I would urge this body

[[Page 7949]]

to take up would increase funding for our cooperative missile defense 
program with Israel to ensure that our ally--our close friend--can 
procure the necessary vital assets and conduct further mutually 
beneficial research and development efforts. This has been an ongoing 
partnership between Israel and the United States of America and yet, 
unfortunately, the Obama administration, in its request submitted to 
Congress, zeroed out procurement for David's Sling, Arrow 2, and Arrow 
3, vital elements of Israeli missile defense. This is at a time when 
the threats are growing, and the administration decided that zero was 
the appropriate level. Respectfully, I disagree. This amendment would 
fully fund procurement for Israeli missile defense.
  Now, much of this missile defense is done in partnership working 
closely with American corporations producing jobs here at home. But it 
is also vital to our national security, as we see a proliferation of 
threats across the world. The technology of intersecting incoming 
threats and intersecting incoming missiles before they can take the 
lives of innocents is all the more important. Yet we are at a time when 
the administration has funneled hundreds of millions--and headed to 
billions--of dollars to Iran and their despotic regime.
  The administration knows and they acknowledge that substantial 
portions of those funds will be used to fund radical Islamic 
terrorists, will be used to fund efforts to murder Israelis and to 
murder Americans. Yet, nonetheless, it is U.S. taxpayer dollars and 
dollars under the control of our government--billions--that are going 
to the Ayatollah Khamenei, who chants and pledges ``Death to America'' 
and ``Death to Israel,'' as a result of the fecklessness of our foreign 
policy.
  Our closest ally in the Middle East remains in a deeply troubling and 
precarious position. Israel must be prepared to defend against Hamas 
and Hezbollah rocket stockpiles that are being rebuilt and improved, 
while also being forced to counter an increasingly capable adversary in 
the nation of Iran, which is intent on the destruction of Israel. We 
must not fail in our obligation to stand with Israel. It is my hope 
that, if and when this body takes up this amendment, we will stand in 
bipartisan unity, standing with Israel against the radical Islamic 
terrorists who seek to destroy both them and us. In doing so, we will 
further both Israeli national security and the safety and security of 
the United States of America.
  In addition to working to provide for our common defense and protect 
our sovereignty, I have also introduced an amendment that would 
safeguard our country in a very different way. I have submitted an 
amendment that would prohibit the Obama administration from giving away 
the Internet. This issue doesn't just simply threaten our personal 
liberties. It also has significant national security ramifications. The 
Obama administration is months away from deciding whether the U.S. 
Government will continue to provide oversight over the core functions 
of the Internet and continue to protect it from authoritarian regimes 
who view the Internet as a way to increase their influence and suppress 
the freedom of speech.
  Just weeks ago, the Washington Post--hardly a bastion of conservative 
thought--published an article entitled: ``China's scary lesson to the 
world: Censuring the Internet works.'' We shouldn't take our online 
freedom for granted. If Congress sits idly by and allows the 
administration to terminate U.S. oversight of the Internet, we can be 
certain authoritarian regimes will work to undermine the new system of 
Internet governance and strengthen the position of their governments at 
the expense of those who stand for liberty and freedom of speech.
  This prospect is truly concerning, given the proposal submitted by 
the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, known as 
ICANN. ICANN is a global organization, and its latest proposal 
unquestionably decreases the position of the United States while it 
increases the influence of over 160 foreign governments within ICANN in 
critical ways--foreign governments like China, foreign governments like 
Russia. Additionally, this proposal has the potential to expand ICANN's 
historical core mission by creating a potential gateway to content 
regulation, and it would only further embolden ICANN's leadership, 
which has a poor track record of acting in an unaccountable manner and 
a proven unwillingness to respond to specific questions posed by the 
Senate.
  Relinquishing our control over the Internet would be an irreversible 
decision. We must act affirmatively to protect the Internet, as well as 
the operation and security of the dot-gov and dot-mil top-level 
domains, which are vital to our national security.
  For whatever reason, the Obama administration is pursuing the 
giveaway of the Internet in a dogged and ideological manner. It is the 
same naive foolishness that decades ago led Jimmy Carter to give away 
the Panama Canal. It is this utopian view that, even though we built 
it, we should give it to others whose interests are not our own. We 
should not have given away the Panama Canal, and we should not be 
giving away the Internet. If the Obama administration succeeds in 
giving away the Internet--which is, No. 1, prohibited by the 
Constitution of the United States, which specifies that property of the 
United States Government cannot be transferred without the authority of 
Congress--this administration is ignoring that constitutional 
limitation and is ignoring the law. But if the Obama administration 
gives away the Internet, it will impact freedom, it will impact speech 
for you, for your children, and your children's children.
  I would note that one of the things this body is good at is inertia--
doing nothing. Right now, that is what this body is doing to stop it. 
My amendment would say that control of the Internet cannot be 
transferred to anyone else without the affirmative approval of the 
United States Congress. If it is a good idea to give away the Internet 
that we built, that we preserve, that we keep free, that we protect 
with the First Amendment--and I can't imagine anyone reasonably 
objective believing it is, but if it is--we ought to debate it on this 
floor. A decision of that consequence should be decided by Congress and 
not by unaccountable bureaucrats in the Obama administration. So it is 
my hope that colleagues in this body will come together, at the very 
minimum, to say not whether or not the Internet should be given away 
but simply that Congress should decide that. There was a time when this 
body was vigorous in protecting its constitutional prerogatives. It is 
my hope that this body will rediscover the imperative of doing so.
  The third amendment I have submitted on the NDAA that I want to 
address is the Expatriate Terrorist Act, a bill I introduced over a 
year ago and that I have now filed as an amendment to the NDAA.
  As we all know, radical Islamic terrorists have been waging war 
against the United States since--and, indeed, well before--9/11, and 
yet the President cannot bring himself to identify the enemy, 
preferring instead to use meaningless bureaucratic terms like violent 
extremists. The President naively believes that refraining from calling 
the threat what it is--radical Islamic terrorism--will somehow assuage 
the terrorists and discourage them from making war against us and our 
allies. But that hasn't stopped ISIS from promising to strike America 
over and over and over, nor did it dissuade the radical Islamic 
terrorists here in the United States who have committed attacks against 
Americans since this President first took office--the terrorist attack 
in Fort Hood, which the administration inexplicably tried to 
characterize as ``workplace violence,'' the Boston Marathon bombing, 
the terrorist attack on military recruiters in Little Rock and 
Chattanooga, and, most recently, the horrific attack in San Bernardino.
  The question for us in Congress is whether we have given the 
government every possible tool, consistent with the Constitution, to 
defeat this threat. I do not believe we have, which is why I have 
introduced the Expatriate Terrorist Act.

[[Page 7950]]

  Over the years, numerous Americans, like Jose Padilla, Anwar al-
Awlaki and Faisal Shahzad, just to name a few, have abandoned their 
country and their fellow citizens to go abroad and join radical Islamic 
terrorist groups. Intelligence officials estimate that more than 250 
Americans have tried or succeeded in traveling to Syria and Iraq to 
join ISIS or other terrorist groups in the region. This amendment 
updates the expatriation statute so that Americans who travel abroad to 
fight with radical Islamic terrorists can relinquish their citizenship. 
This will allow us to preempt any attempt to reenter the country and 
launch attacks on Americans or to otherwise hide behind the privileges 
of citizenship. In this more and more dangerous world, it would be the 
height of foolishness for the administration to allow known 
terrorists--radical Islamic terrorists affiliated with ISIS, Al Qaeda, 
or other Islamist groups--to travel back to the United States of 
America using a passport to carry out jihad and murder innocent 
Americans.
  This legislation should be bipartisan legislation. This legislation 
should be legislation that brings all of us together. We might disagree 
on the questions of marginal tax rates as Democrats and Republicans. We 
might disagree on a host of policy issues. But when it comes to the 
simple question of whether an Islamic terrorist intent on killing 
Americans should be allowed to use a U.S. passport to travel freely and 
come into America, that answer should be no, and that ought to be an 
issue of great agreement.
  Today I call upon my colleagues to join me in supporting these 
amendments and coming together. Together these amendments strengthen 
our Nation both at home and abroad. We are stronger than the obstacles 
we face. And by the grace of God, we will succeed. The stakes are too 
high to quit, and we will stand together and continue to strengthen 
this exceptional Nation, this shining city on a hill that each and 
every one of us loves.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I hope the Senator from Texas, who just 
made a moving commentary, would consider in the future standing 
together and voting for the Defense authorization bill rather than 
voting against it.
  We stood together on the committee with only three votes against the 
Defense authorization bill, and he voted against it last year as well. 
So I would look forward to working with the Senator from Texas and 
maybe getting him--instead of being one or two in the bipartisan effort 
of the committee--to vote for the Defense authorization bill.
  I might tell him also that with his agenda, as he described it, I 
would be much more agreeable to considering that agenda if he would 
consider voting for the defense of this Nation--which is that thick--
which we worked for months and months with hearings, meetings, and 
gatherings, and he decided to vote against the authorization bill. So I 
look forward to working with him, and perhaps next time he might 
consider voting for it rather than being 1 of 3 out of some 27 in the 
committee who voted for it in a bipartisan fashion, of which I am very 
proud.
  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. CRUZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I would briefly respond to my friend from 
Arizona. As he is aware, this NDAA contains one provision that in the 
history of our country is a radical departure. For the first time ever, 
this NDAA would subject women to Selective Service and potentially the 
draft.
  Was this change done through open debate? Was this change done in 
front of the American people? Was this change done reflecting their 
views? No. It was inserted by committee staff in the committee draft. 
It is a radical change that is attempting to be foisted on the American 
people.
  I am the father of two daughters. Women can do anything they set 
their mind to, and I see that each and every day. But the idea that we 
should forcibly conscript young girls into combat, in my mind, makes 
little to no sense. It is, at a minimum, a radical proposition. I could 
not vote for a bill that did so, particularly that did so without 
public debate.
  In addition to that, I would note that in previous years, I have 
joined with Senator Lee and others in pressing for an amendment that 
would protect the constitutional rights of all Americans against 
unlimited detention of American citizens on American soil. The chairman 
is well aware, because I have told him this now 4 years in a row, that 
if the Senate would take up and pass the amendment protecting the 
constitutional due process rights of American citizens--the Bill of 
Rights actually matters--then I would happily vote for the bill. Yet 
the Senate has not taken up that amendment, so I have had no choice but 
to vote no at the end of the day.
  I can tell you right now that if this bill continues to extend the 
draft to women--a radical change, much to the astonishment of the 
voters, being foisted on the American people not just by Democrats but 
by a lot of Republicans--then I will have no choice but to vote no 
again this year. But I can say this: I would be thrilled to vote yes if 
we focused on the vital responsibilities of protecting this country 
rather than focusing on extraneous issues.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas has the unique 
capability of finding a provision in a bill that thick to base his 
opposition on with a strong moral stand. The fact is that every single 
military leader in this country--both men and women, members of the 
military uniformed leadership of this country--believes it is simply 
fair, since we have opened up all aspects of the military to women in 
the military, that they would also be registering for Selective 
Service.
  I would also point out that every single member of the committee--
people such as Senator Ayotte, Senator Shaheen, Senator McCaskill, all 
of the female members of the committee--also finds it a matter of 
equality. Women I have spoken to in the military overwhelmingly believe 
that women are not only qualified but are on the same basis as their 
male counterparts.
  Every uniformed leader of the U.S. military seems to have a different 
opinion from the Senator from Texas, whose military background is not 
extensive. I believe it was indefinite detention last time, which 
obviously is an issue but, in my view, not a sufficient reason because 
it was not included. The bill last year did not address that issue, but 
because we didn't address the issue to the satisfaction of the Senator 
from Texas, then he voted against the bill. This year it is Selective 
Service.
  The vote within the committee was overwhelming. The opinion of men 
and women in the military--every one of our military leaders believes 
that.
  The Senator from Texas is entitled to his views, but to think that 
somehow that is sufficient reason for him to continue to vote against 
the bill--even though he does not respect the will of the majority--in 
my view, that is not sufficient reason to continue to oppose what is a 
bipartisan bill that was overwhelmingly voted for in committee and at 
the end of the day, in previous years, was voted for overwhelmingly in 
the Senate.
  I respect the view of the Senator from Texas. Too bad that view is 
not shared by our military leadership--the ones who have had the 
experience in combat with women in the military.
  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. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 7951]]


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


                    Standing Together As One Nation

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I thought long and hard about giving 
this speech, and I don't come to the floor lightly, but as the senior 
Latino in this Chamber, I felt I had to speak, for those who do not 
recall the past are destined to repeat it, and I don't want to let this 
opportunity pass without speaking out.
  The remarks of the presumptive Republican nominee for President about 
Judge Gonzalo Curiel are taking this Nation and the Republican Party 
down a dark and slippery slope. The road to some of the darkest moments 
of history have been paved with the rants of petty demagogues against 
ethnic minorities for centuries. And now, again in this century, Donald 
Trump is echoing those same racist rants and by doing so threatening to 
take this Nation to a dangerous place.
  While Donald Trump's racist themes throughout his campaign are a new 
low for one of America's major political parties, they are not unique 
in history. This is page one on the dark chapters of history: Separate 
us from them. Tyrants and dictators have incited hatred against ethnic 
and religious minorities for centuries in order to consolidate power 
for themselves. Increasingly radical-thinking Republicans are not 
blameless in creating the environment that has led to this disaster, 
that has led to a new McCarthyism that calls out people not for their 
beliefs but for their ethnicity.
  We have governed from crisis to crisis over the past 8 years, not 
because we cannot find solutions to our problems but because of 
political decisions to delegitimize the process and the President. They 
have fed into the ranks of a petty demagogue and now struggle to find 
safe ground. They have given quarter to snake oil salesmen and 
conspiracy theorists.
  Now we have the head of a major U.S. political party attacking a 
Federal judge because of his parentage. This isn't a reality TV show or 
real estate deal; this is an attack on our independent judiciary. We 
are talking about a Presidential candidate tearing the fabric with 
which we enforce our laws and help citizens protect themselves from 
injustice.
  In every aspect of her life, my mother believed in being treated 
fairly. What she did not believe is that being treated fairly meant she 
would always get what she wanted and that if she did not get it, it 
would be proof that the process of the system was corrupt, unfair, and 
out to get her.
  To my mother and to me, lashing out when we don't get what we want--
as Donald Trump seems to do so often--can be described only as 
remarkably childish, thin-skinned, surprisingly egocentric, and 
frankly, for someone who aspires to lead this Nation, dangerously 
undemocratic, if not outright demagogic, threatening the very 
safeguards our Founders put in place to protect us from those, like Mr. 
Trump, whose only view of the world seems to be in a mirror. His only 
response to adversity is to blame someone else and turn people against 
each other. The fact is, leaders don't turn people against each other; 
they bring them together in common cause. Mr. Trump needs to learn that 
there is not always someone else to blame for defeat. The fact that you 
lost doesn't imply unfairness, it only indicates that you lost, and he 
should get used to it, although it is a difficult concept for someone 
raised to believe there would be no losing and if there were, it must 
be a mistake that can be rectified with power, money, or a lawsuit. 
Apparently, in Mr. Trump's mind, if he loses, it must be someone else's 
fault: It is he. It is they. It is those people. He isn't American. He 
doesn't have a birth certificate. He is a Muslim. It is all of them. He 
is a Mexican judge, and I want to build a wall, so he is being unfair 
to me.
  That attitude may be childish and pathetic in a schoolyard bully, but 
in an American President and Commander in Chief, it is downright 
dangerous.
  I have traveled my State and this Nation and listened to people who 
wonder, as many of us do, how our political dialogue has become so 
dangerously coarse and brash and blatantly racist and how we seem to 
have reduced the greatness of this country to its lowest common 
denominator. We are talking about electing a President--a man or woman 
who will hold the nuclear code and will decide matters of war and peace 
and whether to send our sons and daughters into harm's way. The stakes 
are too high to allow a megalomaniac to pound his chest over a 
legitimate decision ordered by a judge who was confirmed unanimously by 
this Senate.
  Many of my colleagues have tried to distance themselves from the 
comments of the nominee, but in many cases they have not gone far 
enough. They have not called him out as they should, politics aside, 
for the threat he poses to this Nation if he is elected.
  Many of my colleagues must recognize, as I do, that a Federal judge 
born in Indiana, which is part of these great United States, with a 
Mexican family background whose parents became U.S. citizens is not a 
Mexican judge but is an American judge, just as a U.S. Senator like 
this one--born in New York, raised in New Jersey, from a Cuban family 
background--is a U.S. Senator. To imply otherwise and ask Judge Curiel 
to recuse himself from a case because of where his parents were born is 
on its face racist.
  They need to come to the floor and denounce the comments of their 
nominee. In fact, all Americans should denounce this kind of blatant 
racism. The tone of the Trump campaign and his statements, actions, and 
demeanor threaten to send us down a slippery slope. He doesn't seem to 
be able to stop himself. He has doubled down and said that it is 
impossible, for example--that a judge of Muslim descent might not be 
able to render a favorable decision in a Trump v. Whomever case because 
of the candidate's policy to ban Muslims from entering this country. 
Anyone who won't stand up and call this blatant racism has decided to 
put partisan politics ahead of our country. This is how a new 
McCarthyism comes to America, sold by a reality TV show host, aided and 
abetted by a political party without the courage to stand up to racism 
in its most cynical form.
  I have watched this campaign, like most of my colleagues, incredulous 
at what I heard, shocked, in disbelief, and with a deep concern at the 
level of discourse that has degenerated into name calling and out-and-
out racism. Many of my Republican colleagues and friends are pulling 
their punches, not going far enough to denounce the racist rants of 
their nominee.
  This is not the American political system that I know or grew up 
with, it is not how we run campaigns, and it should make us all feel 
uncomfortable. But it is not good enough to simply be uncomfortable 
with what the presumptive Republican nominee says. We can't just turn a 
deaf ear and a blind eye to someone like Donald Trump and where he 
threatens to take this Nation should he be elected. We cannot wait 
until it is too late, and I believe my colleagues know it but have not 
yet found a way to articulate it.
  We as a nation have to face the ugliness of what he has said and what 
he has no doubt yet to say. We as a people must immediately and 
unconditionally condemn and reject the type of blatant racism we heard 
over the last few days. Those who do not stand up to intolerance and 
hatred only encourage it and sow the seeds of bigotry that will 
ultimately divide us as a nation and a people.
  I urge all of my Republican colleagues and all Americans to reject 
the politics of settling scores and grudges and work toward changing 
the hateful rhetoric we continue to hear.
  We are a nation of immigrants--all of us. We all know the reality of 
what it means to work hard, get an education, build a career, and find 
our way to this Chamber or the Federal bench. Many of us grew up in 
immigrant neighborhoods, like Judge Curiel, having to navigate many 
obstacles, the veiled or not-so-veiled insults, the derogatory 
comments, the finger-pointing and racial stereotypes, while always 
remaining rational and logical enough to take

[[Page 7952]]

the long view and see beyond the mirror and beyond ourselves so we can 
make the best decisions we can and take what comes and in doing so 
become part of the larger whole, no longer a stranger but members of 
something larger than ourselves.
  When Donald Trump says ``There's my African American'' at a political 
rally, we see only a fellow American, a citizen, one of us, not one of 
them.
  Today we are all Judge Gonzalo Curiel, and today we stand together as 
one Nation, indivisible, no matter how hard someone tries to divide us.
  I repeat: The road to some of the darkest moments in history have 
been paved with the rants of petty demagogues against ethnic minorities 
for centuries, and Donald Trump is echoing those same racist rants, 
threatening to take this Nation to a dangerous place. Let's all of us 
speak out before it is too late.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr Cruz). The Senator from South Dakota.


                     The President's Foreign Policy

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, as we enter the final stretch of the Obama 
administration, many have began analyzing the President's tenure and 
debating what legacy he will leave. People are asking: Are we better 
off? Are we safer? Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that the answer 
to both of those questions is no.
  As we look around the world right now, we see more and more unrest 
and insecurity, and the foreign policy failures of the President and 
his administration are partly responsible. Again and again, when it has 
come time for the President to lead, he has chosen instead to sit on 
the sidelines. His failure to act has emboldened our enemies and 
alienated our allies.
  Take the situation in Syria. I am not blaming the start of the Syrian 
civil war on President Obama, but when a redline was drawn and crossed 
and the President ignored it, we lost our credibility and our ability 
to influence President Assad. As we retreated from a position of 
strength, turmoil and unrest erupted in Syria.
  The President's reluctance to act must have looked familiar to 
foreign leaders like Vladimir Putin. It doesn't make the front pages of 
the papers anymore, but we must remember that Russia invaded the 
sovereign country of Ukraine and annexed Crimea while the President did 
nothing. After that, it is no surprise that Russia felt free to involve 
itself in Syria or that it continues to occupy and influence parts of 
eastern Ukraine as if it were a colony and not a free nation.
  Recently, we have also seen Russian jets buzzing U.S. Navy ships. I 
can think of few other Presidents who would have stood for Russia's 
behavior, but this passiveness now defines President Obama's approach 
to foreign policy. The now-infamous Russian reset promoted by President 
Obama and Secretary Clinton will go down in history as a strategic 
failure of this administration.
  In the Pacific, which was intended to be a key focus of the 
President's foreign policy, China has gone largely unchallenged, 
especially in the South China Sea. The noticeable absence of the United 
States over the last 7 years has led to China building an island and 
standing up an airfield in some of the most disputed waters in the 
world--an island, Mr. President. Can you imagine if a country tried to 
build an island near the United States and then to militarize it? It is 
no surprise that our allies in Southeast Asia are growing increasingly 
nervous with the rising military power making such aggressive claims on 
their doorsteps.
  Then there is the situation in Iraq. During his campaign, the 
President promised to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, which he then 
proceeded to do on a publicly announced timetable. Military planners 
and congressional Republicans warned that telegraphing our plans to 
insurgents will encourage them to bide their time and wait for our 
troops to leave before preying upon an underprepared Iraqi military. 
But it was evident that President Obama and Secretary Clinton didn't 
want to see our obligation to the Iraqis through; they were more 
interested in keeping an ill-advised campaign promise no matter what 
the cost to security in Iraq.
  The President proceeded with his plans to withdraw our troops without 
pressing former Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki on the importance of making 
sure his country was stable and secure before we withdrew. Everyone 
knows what happened next: The lack of American troops left a gaping 
hole in Iraq security and ISIS rolled in to fill the gap. Once called 
the JV team by President Obama, ISIS quickly established itself as 
arguably the most dangerous terrorist organization in the world. From 
its safe haven in Iraq, ISIS has spread terror across the Middle East 
and into Europe, destroying peaceful communities and cultural relics 
alike in its pursuit of a caliphate.
  My heart especially breaks for the Christians and other religious 
minorities in the region in this time of darkness. Their experience 
under ISIS has been one of relentless persecution and suffering--
genocide, Mr. President.
  ISIS's spread has only made the situation in Syria more dire, as well 
as extended terror beyond the Middle East to Europe. It may have also 
influenced a mass shooting here in the United States.
  Even the President's supposed leadership triumphs have demonstrated 
his unwillingness to stand up to our Nation's enemies. As the days 
pass, buyer's remorse from Democrats for the Iran deal continues to 
grow. The President negotiated a nuclear deal with Iran that will not 
only fail to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, but it will 
actually make it easier for Iran to acquire advanced nuclear weapons 
down the road. This deal will jeopardize the security of the United 
States and our allies for many years to come.
  Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes has admitted to creating 
``an echo chamber'' of falsehoods to sell the deal. We have also 
learned that a firm that helped push the deal also funded positive 
media coverage. Not only was this a bad deal that will make it easier 
for Iran to acquire advanced nuclear weapons down the road, the 
administration was disingenuous in how it sold the deal. It pulled a 
fast one over Congress, the American people, and our partners around 
the world, all in the name of burnishing the President's legacy, not 
because it was the will of the people. This is another instance of the 
President's missteps that sends troubling signals to our allies--in 
this case, Israel, our closest and most reliable ally in the region.
  I make these points because it is against this backdrop of growing 
international instability and lessening U.S. influence that the Senate 
is now considering the National Defense Authorization Act. This 
legislation authorizes the funding necessary to equip our troops with 
the resources they need to carry out their missions.
  As we look beyond the failures of the Obama administration to the 
challenges that lie ahead, it is even more important that when it comes 
to our military, we get things right. It is not America's strength that 
tempts our adversaries, it is our weakness. That is why we need to 
ensure that our military is well-equipped and trained to meet the 
challenges of rising powers through high-tech capabilities, while also 
being agile and versatile to combat increased unconventional threats 
from nonstate actors.
  We sleep at night in peace and safety because our military stands on 
watch around the globe. As threats multiply around the world, we must 
ensure that the military has every resource it needs to confront the 
dangers facing our Nation. We need to support essential forward-looking 
weapons systems, such as the B-21 long-range strategic bomber and high-
tech drones to deter and defeat future threats.
  We must ensure that detainees stay at Guantanamo, instead of 
returning to the fight. We must ensure that our troops and their 
families at home have the support they need and deserve. This bill will 
accomplish all that.
  As we continue to debate the National Defense Authorization Act, I am 
sure there are some contentious issues that will come up, but while 
there may be some disagreement, we must pass

[[Page 7953]]

this essential legislation without delay. Playing politics with funding 
for our troops, as the President did by vetoing the National Defense 
Authorization Act last summer, is unacceptable. I urge my colleagues to 
join me to advance this essential legislation to provide for our troops 
to ensure the safety and defense of America and to help restore 
America's position of strength.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


    Hazardous Materials Rail Transportation Safety Improvement Bill

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, rural Oregonians who have long worried 
about trains rumbling through our treasured Columbia River Gorge had 
their fears realized last Friday when a mile-long oil train derailed 
and caught fire in the heart of one of our State's crown jewels, the 
Columbia River Gorge.
  Our State is rich with breathtaking places, and we believe the 
Columbia River Gorge is right at the top of the list. Local tribes 
consider the area sacred ground, and it took the breath away from 
Meriwether Lewis, who wrote in his journal of ``beautiful cascades 
which fell from a great height over stupendous rocks. . . .''.
  In addition to being a haven for wildlife, the gorge is the lifeblood 
for tens of thousands of residents in the Pacific Northwest, a critical 
transportation corridor, and a center for outdoor recreation and 
tourism. Those who visit the gorge do so to windsurf, kiteboard, and 
parasail, fish, hike, and camp. It boasts the most visited recreation 
site in the Pacific Northwest, the thundering Multnomah Falls that 
Meriwether Lewis wrote about.
  In this pristine area, trains carrying flammable liquids barrel 
through the gorge on tracks that were built in the first half of the 
20th century. On Friday, just a stone's throw from our region's 
lifeblood, the Columbia River, one of those trains fell off the tracks. 
Sixteen cars hauling crude oil crashed within view of a community 
school in the small town of Mosier. Three tank cars caught fire, one 
car leaked oil, and one experienced what is known as a thermal tear, 
sending a column of flames shooting into the air.
  We can see from the photo next to me just how close this fiery crash 
was to that school. People within a mile of the crash site were 
evacuated. The evacuation zone included Interstate 84, which was closed 
for 12 hours, and at least 100 nearby households. Some of these folks 
have yet to return to their homes. The sewer system was damaged badly 
enough that it was taken offline. Firefighters were forced to use so 
much water to put out the fire that the town's main well was depleted. 
As a result, residents who remain have been forced to drink bottled and 
boiled water. This has all been taking place in the middle of a heat 
wave at home.
  Here is the point about the reality I just described. A lot of 
Oregonians are telling me that we got lucky with the oil train accident 
in Mosier, and they are right. This crash has left Oregonians wondering 
what unlucky would have looked like. I can tell you it doesn't take a 
lot of imagination. The Mosier crash could have been much worse if the 
train had been going faster and with more cars derailing. It could have 
been worse if the crash had happened on Thursday, when winds were 
clocked above 30 miles an hour and the fire would have spread to the 
nearby tree line. If the crash had happened a mile east, it would have 
been on the edge of the river, causing a potentially catastrophic spill 
in the middle of a salmon run. If it had happened 60 miles west, it 
would have been in downtown Portland or in one of the suburbs.
  Oregon has been lucky a lot, and at some point that luck is going to 
run out. What people in small communities in Oregon want to know, and 
what they deserve to know, is what happens next. What is Congress going 
to do to start fixing the problem?
  I am here this morning with my friend and colleague from Oregon, 
Senator Merkley, to talk about what specifically we are going to do to 
get this fixed. More than a year ago, I introduced legislation with 
Senator Merkley, Senator Schumer, and five other Senators called the 
Hazardous Materials Rail Transportation Safety Improvement Act. Since 
then, four more Senators have signed on. Among the bill's lead 
supporters are the International Association of Firefighters and the 
International Association of Fire Chiefs.
  Our bill reduces the chance of accidents in the first place by 
providing funding for communities to relocate segments of track away 
from highly populated areas and for States to conduct more track 
inspections. Next, it helps communities prepare for a possible accident 
by paying for training for first responders before the next accident. 
Finally, the bill provides market incentives to use the safest tank 
cars to transport hazardous materials, which lowers the chance of a 
spill or a fire in the event of an accident.
  On Monday I talked with Union Pacific's CEO, Mr. Fritz. He committed 
to work with me and the Senate sponsors on this legislation. He 
indicated there were parts of the bill that the company can support. I 
think knowing that the company is willing now to follow up is a bit of 
constructive news and an encouraging development, but much more needs 
to be done.
  Yesterday, Senator Merkley and I, with our Governor, Congressman 
Blumenauer, Congressman Bonamici, called for a temporary moratorium on 
oil train traffic through the Columbia River Gorge. Yesterday, when I 
talked to the CEO of Union Pacific, Mr. Fritz, he committed that the 
Union Pacific will not ship Union trains of oil through the gorge until 
there are three developments: No. 1, the cause of the accident has been 
determined, No. 2, Union Pacific ensures that an accident will not 
happen again, and the company sits down and works out concerns that are 
obviously of enormous importance to the residents of Mosier.
  These commitments are helpful, and we are going to monitor them 
closely. The company has to do everything possible to help get 
residents in the town back on their feet. That includes getting the 
sewage system up and running and getting people back in their homes so 
they can get about their everyday lives.
  In my view, it would be hard, after a very close call like the one in 
Mosier on Friday, for anybody to just walk away and say, well, there 
probably will not be another accident, because while the people of 
Mosier work to get back to their normal lives, the threat of another 
crash is going to linger. Our people are talking about it. They are 
telling the newspapers they are nervous. They are nervous about the 
prospect of another accident, which is lingering in the minds of folks 
across my State.
  It has been clear for years that more needs to be done to protect our 
communities and prevent the next accident from ever occurring. It is 
tragic that Mosier has now joined a long and growing list of both small 
towns and big cities that have experienced an oil train accident, 
including: Casselton, ND; Lynchburg, VA; Aliceville, AL; New Augusta, 
MS; LaSalle, CO; Galena, IL; Watertown, WI; and Philadelphia, PA.
  More needs to be done to ensure that transportation systems used to 
haul crude oil and other flammable liquids are up to par. I hope 
Members of this body on both sides of the aisle will join me and 
Senator Merkley and nine other Senators. We already have over 10 
percent of the Senate. I hope they will join us in our effort to 
protect communities everywhere from the next oil train accident. This 
has nothing to do with Democrats and Republicans. What this has to do 
with is whether we are going to take commonsense steps to prevent these 
accidents and ensure that in particular we do everything we can to have 
the kind of trains that are not as likely to be part of accidents in 
the future.
  My colleague Senator Merkley has been a terrific partner in this 
effort. We have been talking about how we are going to tackle this 
urgent issue for the people we represent, and he is going to have 
important remarks about Friday's accident in Mosier as well.
  With that, I yield the floor and look forward to Senator Merkley's 
comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise with my friend and colleague 
Senator

[[Page 7954]]

Wyden to draw attention to the dangerous oil train derailment that 
occurred in Oregon last Friday and the urgency to protect communities 
around our Nation with stronger safety regulations for these rolling 
explosion hazards.
  The folks in the Columbia Gorge have experienced a proliferation of 
trains carrying coal and carrying oil. They have been concerned about 
the length of the trains and how these trains roll through, dividing 
their communities and the challenges they have. There is one concern 
they have above everything else; that is, that a train full of 
explosive Bakken crude would derail in their community. That happened 
last Friday.
  It is the very scenario communities have dreaded. This oil train was 
traveling through the Cascade Mountains along the Columbia Gorge on its 
way to Tacoma, WA, with 97 cars loaded with flammable, explosive Bakken 
crude. Sixteen tank cars went off the tracks. One car ruptured, and 
when it ruptured, it spewed oil. The oil created an inferno, and the 
inferno started to heat up the adjacent cars. The adjacent cars had 
pressure relief valves that as they got hot, started spewing oil out of 
these pressure relief valves, spreading the fire to three cars. This 
happened near the town of Mosier, OR, which is just 70 miles east of 
Portland.
  We were fortunate. We thank our lucky stars no one was injured in the 
incident, but it could have been different, as my colleague from Oregon 
pointed out. The proximity of Mosier resulted in an evacuation of over 
100 nearby residents and the nearby grade school with over 200 
children. An air quality warning occurred for vulnerable residents from 
the thick plumes of black smoke. We were fortunate, and we are happy 
that no human life was taken and no injury occurred.
  Let's take a look at what that inferno looked like in this photo. We 
can see the massive plume of burning Bakken crude rising into the air. 
We see here the fire in the adjacent cars. We see the proximity to the 
Columbia River. There could have been a massive release of oil into the 
Columbia River as well. Again, we were fortunate in this regard. The 
Columbia Gorge is a very special place, but as its narrow channel 
through the Cascade Mountain occurs, these trains run through the 
middle of virtually every community along the way. They represent a 
rolling time bomb. Citizens are right to have grave concerns.
  I don't think the citizens along the Columbia Gorge are mollified by 
thinking, well, it could have been worse; we were fortunate this time. 
Instead, what the citizens of Mosier are thinking and citizens in 
communities all along the gorge are thinking is, our concerns about 
these rolling explosion hazards are confirmed, and we need to take 
serious measures so that one of these trains does not blow up in our 
community in the future.
  Now there are inspections that take place. The track was reportedly 
inspected on May 31. A track detector vehicle used laser and other 
technology to inspect the track within the last 30 days.
  But what happened? Why did this occur along this stretch of track? It 
is reported that a bolt or multiple bolts sheared. Why did they shear? 
Was it temperature differentials between day and night in our unusually 
warm spring? Was it because of the weight of these trains rolling 
through? Was it the volume of the traffic? Was it the speed they were 
traveling?
  We have to understand every detail so that we respond and make sure 
this does not happen again. That is why it is so disturbing that the 
National Transportation Safety Board declined to investigate. In its 
mission, the NTSB is supposed to investigate accidents that result in 
the ``release of hazardous materials''--well, that certainly was the 
case--and that ``involve problems of a recurring nature''.
  There have been recurring derailments that involve significant 
property damage. There was significant damage here. This derailment 
sent oil into Mosier's wastewater treatment plant. The plant has been 
closed down, a major challenge for the city to cope with. There has 
even been a pause in the drinking water because of the modest oil sheen 
in the river. It was uncertain where it was coming from and whether it 
would get into the intake for the drinking water.
  So let's hereafter not have a situation where there is a significant 
crash and we don't have the investigation to learn everything about it 
so we can apply those lessons into the future.
  Senator Wyden has been leading the charge to make sure that we 
understand accidents, that we have the right set of precautions in 
place: braking standards on the brakes and speed standards on the 
tracks and upgraded railroad tanker cars that are far less likely to 
rupture. I thank him for his leadership on this. I am a full-square 
partner in this effort.
  The tank car that ruptured was not one that met the new standards. It 
was what was referred to by the president of Union Pacific as kind of a 
``medium safety''--not the worst car, not the oldest car. It did have 
some upgrades on it but certainly not the new cars that we have been 
setting and aspiring to have; that is, a stronger car with more 
protections, minimizing the chance of a rupture.
  This is an issue we must take on seriously and urgently. Let's 
recognize that it is one accident after another. In July 2013, a 
runaway Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway train spilled oil and caught 
fire inside the town of Lac-Megantic in Quebec. Forty-seven people were 
killed. Thirty buildings burned in the town center.
  In December of that year, a fire engulfed tank cars loaded with oil 
on a Burlington Northern Santa Fe train after a collision about a mile 
from Casselton, ND. Two thousand residents were evacuated as emergency 
responders struggled with the intense fire.
  In January 2014, a 122-car Canadian National Railway train derailed 
in New Brunswick, Canada. Three cars containing propane and one car 
containing crude from western Canada exploded after the derailment, 
creating intense fires that burned for days.
  In April of that year, 15 cars of a crude oil train derailed in 
Lynchburg, VA, near a railside eatery and a pedestrian waterfront, 
sending flames and black smoke into the air. Thirty thousand gallons of 
oil spilled into the James River.
  The list goes on. In February of 2015----
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator allow an interruption so that I can be 
recognized for a unanimous consent request, and he then will regain the 
floor?
  Mr. MERKLEY. I would be honored to yield for your unanimous consent 
proposal.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Oregon yield to me for a unanimous consent request without losing 
his right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
amendments be in order to be offered: Durbin No. 4369 and Inhofe No. 
4204. I further ask that the time until 4 p.m. be equally divided 
between the managers or their designees and that the Senate then 
proceed to vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed, with 
no second-degree amendments to these amendments in order prior to the 
votes, and that there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


 Amendments Nos. 4138, 4293, 4112, 4177, 4354, 4079, 4317, 4031, 4169, 
              4236, 4119, 4095, 4086, 4071, 4247, and 4344

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
amendments be called up en bloc: 4138, Peters; 4293, Baldwin; 4112, 
Gillibrand; 4177, Schumer; 4354, Leahy; 4079, Heitkamp; 4317, Hirono; 
4031, Cardin; 4169, Coats; 4236, Portman; 4119, Roberts; 4095, Ernst; 
4086, Murkowski; 4071, Hatch; 4247, Daines; and 4344, Sullivan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendments by number.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for others, proposes 
     amendments numbered

[[Page 7955]]

     4138, 4293, 4112, 4177, 4354, 4079, 4317, 4031, 4169, 4236, 
     4119, 4095, 4086, 4071, 4247, and 4344 en bloc.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 4138

 (Purpose: To provide for the treatment by discharge review boards of 
  claims asserting post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain 
injury in connection with combat or sexual trauma as a basis for review 
                             of discharge)

       After section 536, insert the following:

     SEC. 536A. TREATMENT BY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARDS OF CLAIMS 
                   ASSERTING POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER OR 
                   TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY IN CONNECTION WITH 
                   COMBAT OR SEXUAL TRAUMA AS A BASIS FOR REVIEW 
                   OF DISCHARGE.

       Section 1553(d) of title 10, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3)(A) In addition to the requirements of paragraph (1) 
     and (2), in the case of a former member described in 
     subparagraph (B), the Board shall--
       ``(i) review medical evidence of the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs or a civilian health care provider that is presented 
     by the former member; and
       ``(ii) review the case with liberal consideration to the 
     former member that post-traumatic stress disorder or 
     traumatic brain injury potentially contributed to the 
     circumstances resulting in the discharge of a lesser 
     characterization.
       ``(B) A former member described in this subparagraph is a 
     former member described in paragraph (1) or a former member 
     whose application for relief is based in whole or in part on 
     matters relating to post-traumatic stress disorder or 
     traumatic brain injury as supporting rationale, or as 
     justification for priority consideration, whose post-
     traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury is 
     related to combat or military sexual trauma, as determined by 
     the Secretary concerned.''.


                           amendment no. 4293

     (Purpose: To require a National Academy of Sciences study on 
 alternative technologies for conventional munitions demilitarization)

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

     SEC. 1422. NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES STUDY ON 
                   CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS DEMILITARIZATION 
                   ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Army shall enter into 
     an arrangement with the Board on Army Science and Technology 
     of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and 
     Medicine to conduct a study of the conventional munitions 
     demilitarization program of the Department of Defense.
       (b) Elements.--The study required pursuant to subsection 
     (a) shall include the following:
       (1) A review of the current conventional munitions 
     demilitarization stockpile, including types of munitions and 
     types of materials contaminated with propellants or 
     energetics, and the disposal technologies used.
       (2) An analysis of disposal, treatment, and reuse 
     technologies, including technologies currently used by the 
     Department and emerging technologies used or being developed 
     by private or other governmental agencies, including a 
     comparison of cost, throughput capacity, personnel safety, 
     and environmental impacts.
       (3) An identification of munitions types for which 
     alternatives to open burning, open detonation, or non-closed 
     loop incineration/combustion are not used.
       (4) An identification and evaluation of any barriers to 
     full-scale deployment of alternatives to open burning, open 
     detonation, or non-closed loop incineration/combustion, and 
     recommendations to overcome such barriers.
       (5) An evaluation whether the maturation and deployment of 
     governmental or private technologies currently in research 
     and development would enhance the conventional munitions 
     demilitarization capabilities of the Department.
       (c) Submittal to Congress.--Not later than 18 months after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     submit to the congressional defense committees the study 
     conducted pursuant to subsection (a).


                           amendment no. 4112

 (Purpose: To expand protections against wrongful discharge to sexual 
                           assault survivors)

       At the end of part II of subtitle D of title V, add the 
     following:

     SEC. 554. MEDICAL EXAMINATION BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE 
                   SEPARATION FOR MEMBERS WITH POST-TRAUMATIC 
                   STRESS DISORDER OR TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY IN 
                   CONNECTION WITH SEXUAL ASSAULT.

       Section 1177(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``, or sexually assaulted,'' after 
     ``deployed overseas in support of a contingency operation''; 
     and
       (2) by inserting ``or based on such sexual assault,'' after 
     ``while deployed,''.


                           amendment no. 4177

(Purpose: To require a report on the replacement of the security forces 
    and communications training facility at Frances S. Gabreski Air 
                     National Guard Base, New York)

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

     SEC. 2615. REPORT ON REPLACEMENT OF SECURITY FORCES AND 
                   COMMUNICATIONS TRAINING FACILITY AT FRANCES S. 
                   GABRESKI AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASE, NEW YORK.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The 106th Rescue Wing at Francis S. Gabreski Air 
     National Guard Base, New York, provides combat search and 
     rescue coverage for United States and allied forces.
       (2) The mission of 106th Rescue Wing is to provide 
     worldwide Personnel Recovery, Combat Search and Rescue 
     Capability, Expeditionary Combat Support, and Civil Search 
     and Rescue Support to Federal and State entities.
       (3) The current security forces and communications facility 
     at Frances S. Gabreski Air National Guard Base, specifically 
     building 250, has fire safety deficiencies and does not 
     comply with anti-terrorism/force protection standards, 
     creating hazardous conditions for members of the Armed Forces 
     and requiring expeditious abatement.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Air Force shall 
     submit to the congressional defense committees a report 
     setting forth an assessment of the need to replace the 
     security forces and communications training facility at 
     Frances S. Gabreski Air National Guard Base.


                           amendment no. 4354

(Purpose: To clarify that the National Guard's mission is both Federal 
 and non-Federal for purposes of a report on the cost of conversion of 
           military technicians to active Guard and Reserve)

       On page 819, strike lines 7 through 13 and insert the 
     following:
       (B) An assessment of the ratio of members of the Armed 
     Forces performing active Guard and Reserve duty and civilian 
     employees of the Department of Defense required to best 
     contribute to the readiness of the Reserves and of the 
     National Guard for its Federalized and non-Federalized 
     missions.


                           amendment no. 4079

  (Purpose: To ensure continued operational capability for long-range 
bomber missions in the event of termination of the B-21 bomber program)

       On page 556, line 2, insert ``, including the modernization 
     investments required to ensure that B-1, B-2, or B-52 
     aircraft can carry out the full range of long-range bomber 
     aircraft missions anticipated in operational plans of the 
     Armed Forces'' after ``program''.


                           amendment no. 4317

    (Purpose: To fulfill the commitment of the United States to the 
                           Republic of Palau)

       At the end of subtitle H of title XII, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 1277. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON COMMITMENT TO THE REPUBLIC OF 
                   PALAU.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Republic of Palau is comprised of 300 islands and 
     covers roughly 177 square miles strategically located in the 
     western Pacific Ocean between the Philippines and the United 
     States territory of Guam.
       (2) The United States and Palau have forged close security, 
     economic and cultural ties since the United States defeated 
     the armed forces of Imperial Japan in Palau in 1944.
       (3) The United States administered Palau as a District of 
     the United Nations Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands 
     from 1947 to 1994.
       (4) In 1994, the United States and Palau entered into a 50-
     year Compact of Free Association which provided for the 
     independence of Palau and set forth the terms for close and 
     mutually beneficial relations in security, economic, and 
     governmental affairs.
       (5) The security terms of the Compact grant the United 
     States full authority and responsibility for the security and 
     defense of Palau, including the exclusive right to deny any 
     nation's military forces access to the territory of Palau 
     except the United States, an important element of our Pacific 
     strategy for defense of the United States homeland, and the 
     right to establish and use defense sites in Palau.
       (6) The Compact entitles any citizen of Palau to volunteer 
     for service in the United States Armed Forces, and they do so 
     at a rate that exceeds that of any of the 50 States.
       (7) In 2009, and in accordance with section 432 of the 
     Compact, the United States and Palau reviewed their overall 
     relationship. In 2010, the two nations signed an agreement 
     updating and extending several provisions of the Compact, 
     including an extension of United States financial and program 
     assistance to Palau, and establishing increased post-9/11 
     immigration protections. However, the United States has not 
     yet approved this Agreement or provided the assistance as 
     called for in the Agreement.

[[Page 7956]]

       (8) Beginning in 2010 and most recently on February 22, 
     2016, the Department of the Interior, the Department of 
     State, and the Department of Defense have sent letters to 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro 
     Tempore of the Senate transmitting the legislation to approve 
     the 2010 United States Palau Agreement including an analysis 
     of the budgetary impact of the legislation.
       (9) The February 22, 2016, letter concluded, ``Approving 
     the results of the Agreement is important to the national 
     security of the United States, stability in the Western 
     Pacific region, our bilateral relationship with Palau and to 
     the United States' broader strategic interest in the Asia-
     Pacific region.''
       (10) On May 20, 2016, the Department of Defense submitted a 
     letter to the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the 
     congressional defense committees in support of including 
     legislation enacting the agreement in the fiscal year 2017 
     National Defense Authorization Act and concluded that its 
     inclusion advances United States national security objectives 
     in the region.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) to fulfill the promise and commitment of the United 
     States to its ally, the Republic of Palau, and reaffirm this 
     special relationship and strengthen the ability of the United 
     States to defend the homeland, Congress and the President 
     should promptly enact the Compact Review Agreement signed by 
     the United States and Palau in 2010; and
       (2) Congress and the President should immediately seek a 
     mutually acceptable solution to approving the Compact Review 
     Agreement and ensuring adequate budgetary resources are 
     allocated to meet United States obligations under the Compact 
     through enacting legislation, including through this Act.


                           Amendment No. 4031

       (Purpose: To impose sanctions with respect to foreign 
     persons responsible for gross violations of internationally 
     recognized human rights)

  (The amendment is printed in the Record of May 18, 2016, under ``Text 
of Amendments.'')


                           amendment no. 4169

 (Purpose: To require a report on the discharge by warrant officers of 
pilot and other flight officer positions in the Navy, Marine Corps, and 
        Air Force currently discharged by commissioned officers)

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

     SEC. __. REPORT ON DISCHARGE BY WARRANT OFFICERS OF PILOT AND 
                   OTHER FLIGHT OFFICER POSITIONS IN THE NAVY, 
                   MARINE, CORPS, AND AIR FORCE CURRENTLY 
                   DISCHARGED BY COMMISSIONED OFFICERS.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Navy 
     and the Secretary of the Air Force shall each submit to the 
     Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives a report on the feasibility and advisability 
     of the discharge by warrant officers of pilot and other 
     flight officer positions in the Armed Forces under the 
     jurisdiction of such Secretary that are currently discharged 
     by commissioned officers.
       (b) Elements.--Each report under subsection (a) shall set 
     forth, for each Armed Force covered by such report, the 
     following:
       (1) An assessment of the feasibility and advisability of 
     the discharge by warrant officers of pilot and other flight 
     officer positions that are currently discharged by 
     commissioned officers.
       (2) An identification of each such position, if any, for 
     which the discharge by warrant officers is assessed to be 
     feasible and advisable.


                           amendment no. 4236

   (Purpose: To require a report on priorities for bed downs, basing 
  criteria, and special mission units for C-130J aircraft of the Air 
                                 Force)

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

     SEC. 1085. REPORT ON PRIORITIES FOR BED DOWNS, BASING 
                   CRITERIA, AND SPECIAL MISSION UNITS FOR C-130J 
                   AIRCRAFT OF THE AIR FORCE.

       (a) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the Air Force Reserve Command contributes unique 
     capabilities to the total force, including all the weather 
     reconnaissance and aerial spray capabilities, and 25 percent 
     of the Modular Airborne Firefighting System capabilities, of 
     the Air Force; and
       (2) special mission units of the Air Force Reserve Command 
     currently operate aging aircraft, which jeopardizes future 
     mission readiness and operational capabilities.
       (b) Report on Priorities for C-130J Bed Downs, Basing 
     Criteria, and Special Mission Units.--Not later than February 
     1, 2017, the Secretary of the Air Force shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a report on the following:
       (1) The overall prioritization scheme of the Air Force for 
     future C-130J aircraft unit bed downs.
       (2) The strategic basing criteria of the Air Force for C-
     130J aircraft unit conversions.
       (3) The unit conversion priorities for special mission 
     units of the Air Force Reserve Command, the Air National 
     Guard, and the regular Air Force, and the manner which 
     considerations such as age of airframes factor into such 
     priorities.
       (4) Such other information relating to C-130J aircraft unit 
     conversions and bed downs as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.


                           amendment no. 4119

   (Purpose: To prohibit reprogramming requests of the Department of 
Defense for funds for the transfer or release, or construction for the 
  transfer or release, of individuals detained at United States Naval 
                     Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba)

       After section 1022, insert the following:

     SEC. 1022A. PROHIBITION ON REPROGRAMMING REQUESTS FOR FUNDS 
                   FOR TRANSFER OR RELEASE, OR CONSTRUCTION FOR 
                   TRANSFER OR RELEASE, OF INDIVIDUALS DETAINED AT 
                   UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, 
                   CUBA.

       While the prohibitions in sections 1031 and 1032 of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
     (Public Law 114-92; 129 Stat. 968) are in effect, the 
     Department of Defense may not submit to Congress a 
     reprogramming request for funds to carry out any action 
     prohibited by either such section.


                           Amendment No. 4095

      (Purpose: To improve Federal program and project management)

  (The amendment is printed in the Record of May 24, 2016, under ``Text 
of Amendments.'')


                           amendment no. 4086

     (Purpose: To authorize a lease of real property at Joint Base 
                     Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska)

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

     SEC. 2826. LEASE, JOINT BASE ELMENDORF-RICHARDSON, ALASKA.

       (a) Leases Authorized.--
       (1) Lease to municipality of anchorage.--The Secretary of 
     the Air Force may lease to the Municipality of Anchorage, 
     Alaska, certain real property, to include improvements 
     thereon, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (``JBER''), 
     Alaska, as more particularly described in subsection (b) for 
     the purpose of permitting the Municipality to use the leased 
     property for recreational purposes.
       (2) Lease to mountain view lions club.--The Secretary of 
     the Air Force may lease to the Mountain View Lions Club 
     certain real property, to include improvements thereon, at 
     JBER, as more particularly described in subsection (b) for 
     the purpose of the installation, operation, maintenance, 
     protection, repair and removal of recreational equipment.
       (b) Description of Property.--
       (1) The real property to be leased under subsection (a)(1) 
     consists of the real property described in Department of the 
     Air Force Lease No. DACA85-1-99-14.
       (2) The real property to be leased under subsection (a)(2) 
     consists of real property described in Department of the Air 
     Force Lease No. DACA85-1-97-36.
       (c) Term and Conditions of Leases.--
       (1) Term of leases.--The term of the leases authorized 
     under subsection (a) shall not exceed 25 years.
       (2) Other terms and conditions.--Except as otherwise 
     provided in this section--
       (A) the remaining terms and conditions of the lease under 
     subsection (a)(1) shall consist of the same terms and 
     conditions described in Department of the Air Force Lease No. 
     DACA85-1-99-14; and
       (B) the remaining terms and conditions of the lease under 
     subsection (a)(2) shall consist of the same terms and 
     conditions described in Department of the Air Force Lease No. 
     DACA85-1-97-36.
       (d) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require such additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with the leases under this section as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.


                           amendment no. 4071

 (Purpose: To redesignate the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 
      Acquisition as the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 
                Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics)

       At the end of subtitle C of title IX, insert the following:

     SEC. 949. REDESIGNATION OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR 
                   FORCE FOR ACQUISITION AS ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF 
                   THE AIR FORCE FOR ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY, AND 
                   LOGISTICS.

       (a) Redesignation.--Section 8016(b)(4)(A) of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 
     Acquisition'' and inserting ``Assistant Secretary of the Air 
     Force for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics''; and
       (2) by inserting ``, technology, and logistics'' after 
     ``acquisition''.
       (b) References.--Any reference to the Assistant Secretary 
     of the Air Force for Acquisition in any law, regulation, map, 
     document, record, or other paper of the United States shall 
     be deemed to be a reference to

[[Page 7957]]

     the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, 
     Technology, and Logistics.


                           amendment no. 4247

  (Purpose: To require an expedited decision with respect to securing 
                       land-based missile fields)

       At the end of subtitle D of title XVI, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 1655. EXPEDITED DECISION WITH RESPECT TO SECURING LAND-
                   BASED MISSILE FIELDS.

       To mitigate any risk posed to the nuclear forces of the 
     United States by the failure to replace the UH-1N helicopter, 
     the Secretary of Defense shall, in consultation with the 
     Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--
       (1) decide if the land-based missile fields using UH-1N 
     helicopters meet security requirements and if there are any 
     shortfalls or gaps in meeting such requirements;
       (2) not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, submit to Congress a report on the decision 
     relating to a request for forces required by paragraph (1); 
     and
       (3) if the Chairman determines the implementation of the 
     decision to be warranted to mitigate any risk posed to the 
     nuclear forces of the United States--
       (A) not later than 60 days after such date of enactment, 
     implement that decision; or
       (B) if the Secretary cannot implement that decision during 
     the period specified in subparagraph (A), not later than 45 
     days after such date of enactment, submit to Congress a 
     report that includes a proposal for the date by which the 
     Secretary can implement that decision and a plan to carry out 
     that proposal.


                           amendment no. 4344

   (Purpose: To authorize military-to-military exchanges with India)

       At the end of subtitle F of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. 1247. MILITARY-TO-MILITARY EXCHANGES WITH INDIA.

       To enhance military cooperation and encourage engagement in 
     joint military operations between the United States and 
     India, the Secretary of Defense may take appropriate actions 
     to ensure that exchanges between senior military officers and 
     senior civilian defense officials of the Government of India 
     and the United States Government--
       (1) are at a level appropriate to enhance engagement 
     between the militaries of the two countries for developing 
     threat analysis, military doctrine, force planning, 
     logistical support, intelligence collection and analysis, 
     tactics, techniques, and procedures, and humanitarian 
     assistance and disaster relief;
       (2) include exchanges of general and flag officers; and
       (3) significantly enhance joint military operations, 
     including maritime security, counter-piracy, counter-terror 
     cooperation, and domain awareness in the Indo-Asia-Pacific 
     region.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now vote on these amendments en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there any further debate on these amendments?
  Hearing none, the question is on agreeing to the amendments en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 4138, 4293, 4112, 4177, 4354, 4079, 4317, 4031, 
4169, 4236, 4119, 4095, 4086, 4071, 4247, and 4344) were agreed to en 
bloc.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I mentioned to my colleagues that we would 
have these two votes later this afternoon, depending on an agreement 
between the majority leader and the Democratic leader. I thank my 
colleagues for their cooperation, and we look forward to those two 
votes.
  I thank my colleague from Oregon for allowing me to make this 
unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. For the information of all Senators, the 
Senate is under an order to recess at 12:30 p.m.
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Merkley, my colleague from Oregon, be allowed to finish his remarks 
prior to the recess.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, at the 
conclusion of the Senator's remarks, I be recognized for my remarks for 
8 minutes before the recess.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oregon.


    Hazardous Materials Rail Transportation Safety Improvement Bill

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, in February of 2015, on Valentine's Day, 
a 100-car Canadian National Railway train hauling crude oil and 
petroleum distillates derailed in Ontario, Canada. The blaze burned for 
days.
  Two days later, a 109-car CSX oil train derailed and caught fire near 
Mount Carbon, WV, leaking oil into a Kanawha River tributary and 
burning a house to its foundation. The blaze burned for weeks.
  In November of last year, a dozen cars loaded with crude oil derailed 
from a Canadian Pacific Railway train, causing the evacuation of dozens 
of homes near Watertown, WI.
  Let's take a look at this chart. In all, there have been 32 crashes 
involving oil trains since 2013. So in less than 4 years, there have 
been 32 crashes. I just highlighted a few of them. We see a massive 
increase of crude oil transported by rail. Therefore, there is a 
corresponding concern because of the explosive nature of this product 
and the derailments resulting in explosions and infernos.
  Senator Wyden and I have been calling for reform. We are going to 
keep pressing. We need better information for first responders on the 
scheduling of these trains. We need better knowledge of where the foam 
that can be used to respond is stored. We need more foam stored in more 
places. We need faster implementation of the brake standards and faster 
implementation of the speed standards and faster implementation of the 
railcar tanker standards.
  But we have to understand what happened in every one of these wrecks. 
Let's take the same diligence to this that we take to aviation. We 
study every plane crash to understand what went wrong so we can take 
these lessons and diminish the odds of it happening again. The result 
is, we have incredibly safe aviation. Shouldn't we have the same 
standards when it applies to transportation across America with trains 
full of explosive oil running through the middle of our towns, not just 
in Oregon but all across this country? Haven't we learned in crash 
after crash after crash that these are not one-time isolated incidents, 
but something that happens with considerable regularity? Can't we do 
more?
  Yes, we can. Yesterday, when I talked to the president of Union 
Pacific, I told him we were going to call for a moratorium, and Senator 
Wyden and Governor Brown and Representatives Blumenauer and Bonamici 
have joined in this effort. He heard our voice. He understands the 
challenge to these communities and the concerns that until the mess is 
cleaned up and until we understand and address the fundamental problems 
that contributed to this crash, no more oil should roll through the 
Columbia Gorge.
  That is what we have called for. That is what we are going to keep 
persisting in. Let's stop this process of having oil train crash after 
oil train crash, explosion after explosion, inferno after inferno. The 
damage has gone up dramatically as the transportation of this oil has 
gone up dramatically. Incidents resulted in $30 million in damage last 
year, up from one-fourth of that the previous year.
  So let's act. Let's act aggressively. Let's act quickly. Senator 
Wyden's act would take us a powerful stride in the right direction.
  Let's not look to our citizens and towns with rail tracks across this 
country and simply shrug our shoulders. Instead, let's say we know we 
have a major problem and we are going to be diligent and aggressive in 
solving it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                           Amendment No. 4204

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment in order to call up amendment No. 4204.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4204.

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

[[Page 7958]]



  (Purpose: To strike the provision relating to the pilot program on 
            privatization of the Defense Commissary System)

         Strike section 662.

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
Senators be added as cosponsors to the Inhofe-Mikulski amendment No. 
4204: Sessions, Rubio, Shelby, Moran, Warren, Peters, and Menendez.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we have been here before. The same 
language that is in the base bill right now was in a year ago. On the 
floor last year, we passed the Inhofe-Mikulski amendment, requiring a 
Secretary of Defense report on commissary benefits. It passed by 
unanimous consent with 25 bipartisan sponsors and cosponsors, and it 
was supported by 41 outside organizations and by the administration. It 
required a study on the impact of privatization of commissaries on 
military families before a pilot program on privatizing could be 
implemented that was to look at modifications to the commissary system.
  I am sending the language now, which I will get to in a minute. It 
required a Comptroller General assessment of the plan no later than 120 
days after submittal of the report.
  Here is the situation. The House passed the fiscal year 2017 NDAA, 
and it doesn't include privatization language. The Senate version has 
the same language as last year, which would authorize a pilot program 
to privatize five commissaries on five major military bases. But only 
yesterday, we received the report from the Secretary of Defense. We 
have not yet received the Comptroller General's review.
  Congress asked for this study because of concerns about the impact 
that privatization could have on our servicemembers and the commissary 
benefit. It seems as if we are taking away benefits. We are working 
these guys and gals harder than we ever have before, and this is one 
very significant benefit that is there.
  Senator Mikulski and I, along with our now 38 cosponsors--last year 
it was 25--and with the support of 42 outside organizations are 
offering a simple amendment that strikes the privatization pilot 
program, allowing Congress to receive and vet the Secretary of Defense 
report and the valuation of the Comptroller.
  This is not the first time this was done. The January 2015 report by 
the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission 
determined that commissaries were worth preserving, and they did not 
recommend privatization. That report took place almost 2 years ago.
  When surveyed in 2014, 95 percent of the military members were using 
commissaries and gave them a 91-percent satisfaction rate.
  According to the Military Officers Association of America, the 
average family of four who shops exclusively at commissaries sees a 
savings of somewhere between 30 percent to 40 percent.
  Mr. President, I have six testimonials from military members about 
using commissaries that I wish to enter into the Record. They said the 
following:

       ``Our family needs the commissary! We wouldn't be able to 
     afford a decent amount of groceries for our family if we had 
     to shop off post!''
       ``My husband is currently active duty AF, and I drive 30 
     one way just to be able to shop at the commissary. We are 
     stationed at a base in the middle of nowhere and if I were to 
     shop at our local store, I would pay nearly twice as much. 
     And, I know that a vast majority of those stationed where we 
     are use the commissary for the same reason. And please 
     consider those stationed overseas and in other rural 
     locations. If the commissaries were privatized, they could 
     increase the prices and without competition, our grocery bill 
     would be significantly higher.''
       ``Whether I am in the states or overseas I use my benefits 
     of lower food cost. I've been in the military for 22 years, 
     I've seen a lot of changes. But this should not be one. If 
     anyone from your office wants more information feel free to 
     contact me.''
       ``While there are some items that may be found at a lower 
     individual price on the economy the total combined savings 
     remains constant.''
       ``When I went out in town and we tried to get the same 
     amount, we got about half of the groceries that we could 
     afford at the Commissary.''
       ``If you want to keep an all-volunteer military, you must 
     keep the benefits that are in place as of today and for the 
     future. All that are serving and have served depend on the 
     commissary and exchange for low-cost goods. If the Commission 
     does not recommend a pay increase, all benefits are extremely 
     needed.''

  Commissaries are required to operate in remote areas. A lot of these 
objections are from commissaries in remote areas where people don't 
have any other place to actually make their purchases.
  At a time when thousands of junior servicemembers and their families 
use food stamps, we should not be making changes that could increase 
costs at the checkout line.
  The commissary benefit encourages people to reenlist, preserving a 
well-trained, dedicated military. It ensures that training investments 
are well spent, saving the expense of retraining the majority of the 
force every few years. The commissary savings and proximity and the 
consistency of the commissaries also encourage spouses, whose opinions 
may be a deciding factor in reenlistment decisions.
  I know this is true. Just last Friday I was at Altus Air Force Base. 
I went into the commissary and talked to someone who was reconsidering. 
It was the wife of a flyer. Right now one of the biggest problems we 
have in the Air Force is the pilot shortage. They said that would be a 
major determining the factor. So it is the right thing to do.
  It also provides jobs for families of servicemen. Sixty percent of 
the commissary employees are military related. The greatest benefit is 
that their jobs are transferable. If they are transferred from one 
place to another, they are already trained and ready to go.
  As I said, the Department of Defense delivered their report only 
yesterday and no one has had a chance to really go over it. The 
mandated GAO review of this plan is now under way. Of course, it could 
be up to 120 days after this for the next step to become completed.
  The report supports section 661 of the Senate bill regarding 
optimization of operations consistent with business practices, but it 
doesn't affect 662. That is the section where we had the pilot program.
  We have addressed this before, but the report also acknowledges that 
privatization would not be able to replicate the range of benefits, the 
level of savings, and geographic reach provided by DeCA while achieving 
budget neutrality.
  It states that the Department of Defense--and I am talking about the 
report from the Department of Defense--is continuing its due diligence 
on privatization by assessing the privatization-involved portions. They 
are already doing that right now. In fact, some things have already 
been privatized, such as the delis, the bakeries. They have been 
privatized already in those areas and that is actually working. So 
privatizing military commissaries before having a full assessment of 
the costs and benefits is not the responsible thing to do. We owe that 
to our members.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the Members who are cosponsors and the organizations that are 
supporting the Inhofe-Mikulski amendment No. 4204.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                    Inhofe-Mikulski Amendment #4204

       (1) Boozman (R-Ark.), (2) Boxer (D-Cali.), (3) Brown (D-
     Ohio), (4) Burr (R-N.C.), (5) Capito (R-W.Va.), (6) Cardin 
     (D-Md.), (7) Casey (D-Pa.), (8) Collins (R-Maine), (9) 
     Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), (10) Hatch (R-Utah), (11) Heller (R-
     Nev.), (12) Hirono (D-Hawaii), (13) Kaine (D-Va.), (14) 
     Klobuchar (D-Minn.), (15) Lankford (R-Okla.), (16) Markey (D-
     Mass.), (17) Menendez (D-N.J.), (18) Moran (R-Kan.).
       (19) Murkowski (R-Alaska), (20) Murray (D-Wash.), (21) 
     Nelson (D-Fla.), (22) Peters (D-Mich.), (23) Rounds (R-S.D.), 
     (24) Rubio (R-Fla.), (25) Schatz (D-Hawaii), (26) Schumer (D-
     N.Y.), (27) Sessions (R-Ala.), (28) Shelby (R-Ala.), (29) 
     Stabenow (D-Mich.), (30) Tester (D-Mont.), (31) Tillis (R-
     N.C.), (32) Udall (D-N.M.), (33) Vitter (R-La.), (34) Warner 
     (D-Va.), (35) Warren (D-Mass.), (36) Whitehouse (D-R.I.).


   42 organizations supporting this amendment/opposing privatization 
                          language in the bill

       (1) Air Force Sergeants Association, (2) American 
     Federation of Government Employees, (3) American Federation 
     of Labor

[[Page 7959]]

     and Congress of Industrial Organizations Teamsters, (4) 
     American Logistics Association, (5) American Military 
     Retirees Association, (6) American Military Society, (7) 
     American Retirees Association, (8) American Veterans, (9) 
     Armed Forces Marketing Council, (10) Army and Navy Union, 
     (11) Association of the United States Army, (12) Association 
     of the United States Navy, (13) Fleet Reserve Association, 
     (14) Gold Star Wives of America.
       (15) International Brotherhood of Teamsters, (16) Iraq and 
     Afghanistan Veterans of America, (17) Jewish War Veterans of 
     the United States of America, (18) Military Order of Foreign 
     Wars, (19) Military Order of the Purple Heart, (20) National 
     Defense Committee, (21) National Guard Association of the 
     United States, (22) National Military Family Association, 
     (23) National Military and Veterans Alliance, (24) Military 
     Partners and Families Coalition, (25) Military Officers 
     Association of America, (26) National Association for 
     Uniformed Services, (27) Society of Military Widows, (28) The 
     American Military Partner Association, (29) The Coalition to 
     Save Our Military Shopping Benefits, (30) The Flag and 
     General Officers Network.
       (31) Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors, (32) The 
     Retired Enlisted Association, (33) Uniformed Services 
     Disabled Retirees, (34) United States Army Warrant Officers 
     Association, (35) Veterans of Foreign Wars, (36) Vietnam 
     Veterans of America, (37) Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of 
     America, (38) National Industries for the Blind, (39) Naval 
     Enlisted Reserve Association, (40) Reserve Officer 
     Association, (41) Enlisted Association of the National Guard 
     of the United States, (42) The American Legion.

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

                          ____________________