[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8159-8188]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Presiding 
Officer. What is our parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering S. 2943.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Independence of Our Federal Judiciary

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I wanted to speak based on my experience 
over the years as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee--as the 
ranking member, as the chairman--on something very public that has 
happened.
  Many Senators in both parties have appropriately condemned the racist 
comments recently made by the Republican Party's presumptive 
Presidential nominee about Judge Curiel. Sadly, these baseless 
allegations he has made against a distinguished Federal judge come as 
no surprise. We have seen for months that personal insults are the 
calling card of the Republican standard bearer. But I would say, 
similar to what many in both parties have said, anyone seeking the 
highest office of this great Nation has to understand the fundamental 
role that judges play in our democracy. The rule of law protects all of 
us, but only when administered by an independent judiciary.
  I am deeply troubled by this attack on a sitting Federal judge, but 
make no mistake--it is not the first, nor will it be the last 
Republican attack on the independence of our Federal judiciary. This 
may be the most extreme example, but it is just the latest in a series 
of Republican actions that seek to undermine and compromise a coequal 
branch of government.
  For more than 7 years, Senate Republicans have tried to block 
judicial nominations through stalling and delaying. They have even 
distorted the records of the men and women nominated to serve on the 
Federal bench. This systematic--and it has been systematic--obstruction 
has hurt courts across the country. But it is not just the courts I am 
worried about; it is the American people who go to those courts seeking 
justice. Judicial vacancies have soared under Republican leadership, 
even though we have dozens of nominations that have bipartisan support, 
and they are languishing on the Senate floor.
  Earlier this year, Senate Republicans took their obstruction one 
totally unprecedented step further. Within hours of the news of Justice 
Scalia's passing, the Republican leader declared his unilateral refusal 
to allow anyone to be confirmed to the Supreme Court until the 
following year, even though he said this in February. It was an 
extraordinarily partisan decision, and there is no precedent for it in 
the United States Senate under either Democratic or Republican 
leadership. Since confirmation hearings began a century ago, never, 
never has the Senate denied a Supreme Court nominee a hearing.

[[Page 8160]]

  Recently, two law professors extensively analyzed the history of the 
Supreme Court. They concluded that there is no historical precedent for 
this refusal to consider Chief Judge Garland's nomination. In fact, 
according to their report, there have been 103 prior times in history 
when an elected President has filled a Supreme Court vacancy prior to 
the election of the next President and has done so with the advice and 
consent of the Senate--103 times. The Republicans' unprecedented 
obstruction--and I quote here--``threatens to damage the appointments 
process in the future and risks significant harm to the Court.''
  The Senate Republican leadership has chosen to put the functioning of 
our highest Court in jeopardy for more than a year. That is the 
partisan attack on our independent judicial system that more Americans 
need to understand. When the dust settles on this latest series of 
accusations by the Republican's standard bearer, I hope the American 
people remember what this says about his disrespect for the rule of 
law, what it says about his disrespect for our justice system, what it 
says about how he will treat those who may disagree with him, and what 
it says about those who fail to hold him accountable.
  Our Founders understood that this great Nation needs an independent 
judiciary. They designed our courts to be insulated from the political 
whims of the moment. They designed our judiciary to serve as a check on 
the political branches, including on the power of the President. Can 
you imagine a future President who does not respect the role judges 
play? A President who thinks judges should be disqualified from doing 
their jobs simply based on their race or their gender?
  For the good of the country, I call on my Republican friends to stop 
diminishing our independent Federal judiciary. It is too important to 
be treated like an election-year pawn. Our Federal courts, from the 
Supreme Court all the way down, deserve to be at full strength, and the 
Senate needs to treat fairly the dozens of nominees before us, all of 
whom have earned bipartisan support.
  It is not fair to attack sitting judges for political gain when they 
cannot even respond to the attack. It is also not fair to make 
allegations against judges who, as nominees, cannot respond because 
Senate Republicans refuse to have a public hearing.
  If the Republican leaders of this body want to distinguish themselves 
from the rhetoric of the campaign trail, they should change course here 
in the Senate. Actions speak louder than words. They should allow Chief 
Judge Garland a public hearing and a confirmation vote this month. They 
should allow an up-or-down vote on the 22 judicial nominees who have 
been reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee and who just 
sit here, waiting for a vote.
  The American people deserve leaders who respect and support our 
Federal courts and have the courage to take action.
  Let me say from a personal point that I remember the day I stood 
before the Vermont Supreme Court as though it was yesterday. I took my 
oath as the newest lawyer in Vermont, and I was the youngest lawyer in 
the State of Vermont. I was very conscious of that, being both the 
youngest and the newest. But I remember the senior partner of our law 
firm, who was a well-known conservative Republican throughout the 
State, and as a young lawyer he told me: Do the best job you can. 
Always tell the truth. But you do not criticize the judges. You might 
not like their decisions. You can always appeal them. Maybe you will 
win; maybe you will lose. But protect the integrity of our courts. They 
are above politics. They should not be brought into it.
  Frankly, the attacks against a judge born in Indiana, a man who has 
defended our Constitution, the people of this country, even when his 
life was threatened--to attack him, to make racist comments about him, 
to demean the courts, to demean our judiciary, our Federal system, the 
best in the world--it made my skin crawl. It was puerile; it was wrong. 
I hope that all of us in both parties will stand above that and protect 
the integrity of our Federal judiciary.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak about my 
amendment No. 4299.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, not a lot of Americans know this, but we 
are at war in the Middle East. We are part of the Saudi-led coalition 
that is in the middle of a very dangerous and catastrophic war inside 
Yemen. The Saudi-led campaign inside Yemen began on March 26, 2015. The 
Houthis, a group within Yemen, had captured the capital in September of 
2014. The Saudi-led campaign, of which the United States is a member, 
had intended to push the Houthis out of the capital.
  The war has been absolutely devastating from both a humanitarian 
perspective and a U.S. national security perspective. Senator Paul and 
I have submitted an amendment that I will not call up right now--but I 
may do so later in the proceedings--which would place some very 
reasonable conditions on the U.S. participation in this coalition, and 
in particular on the U.S. transfer of munitions to Saudi Arabia in 
order to continue this campaign.
  What is the status of this civil war inside Yemen today? Well, first 
of all, as I mentioned, it has been an absolute humanitarian disaster. 
The war has left 3,000 civilians dead, and the total number of deaths 
is 6,200. At this time 80 percent of Yemen's population is wholly 
dependent on international humanitarian relief because they don't have 
adequate food, water, or medical care.
  The capital, Sanaa, has been without electricity or running water for 
over a year. The capital of this country has had no electricity or 
running water for over a year. Nearly the entire population of an 
entire country, Yemen, is now dependent on international humanitarian 
aid in order to subsist.
  During this time, the U.N. has documented 101 attacks on Yemeni 
schools and hospitals, 48 of which were attributed to this coalition-
led bombing campaign that the United States is a part of. Hundreds of 
health facilities have closed due to damage and lack of fuel for 
generators, supplies, and shortage of medical personnel.
  There have been multiple reports of cluster bombs--U.S. made cluster 
bombs being used in or near civilian populations. The United States has 
enabled this campaign. It would not happen without U.S. participation. 
There would not be a Saudi-led bombing campaign in Yemen without the 
United States. Why? Well, first of all, it is billions of dollars in 
U.S. weapons and U.S. munitions that are being dropped inside Yemen, 
including those cluster bombs. It is our intelligence that is providing 
the basis, the foundation, for all the targeting that is being done. 
One can argue that targeting has been dramatically insufficient given 
the number of civilian casualties, but there would be little way for 
the Saudis to do targeting at all without U.S. intelligence. It is Air 
Forces Central Command that has flown 709 air-to-air refueling sorties, 
offloading 26 million pounds of fuel to coalition aircraft. It is 
American refueling missions that allow for the coalition planes to fly. 
So the United States is an indispensable part of this coalition; thus, 
the United States is at war inside Yemen today, and very few people are 
talking about it. But we should, because in addition to a U.S. and 
Saudi-led coalition resulting in the death of thousands of civilians 
inside Yemen, this war is in direct contravention with U.S. national 
security interests.
  First, the damage done to U.S. credibility in the region and amongst 
Muslim populations should be obvious to all of us when it is our bombs 
that are

[[Page 8161]]

killing civilians. If you talk to Yemeni Americans, they will tell you 
that in Yemen this is not a Saudi bombing campaign; this is a U.S.-
Saudi bombing campaign, so every death inside Yemen is attributed to 
the United States. We need to accept that as a consequence of our 
participation in this campaign.
  Secondly, this coalition has made a very purposeful decision to 
target the Houthis instead of targeting terrorist groups, such as AQAP, 
which have used this civil war to expand their base of operations. The 
coalition has made a very purposeful decision to target the Houthis 
instead of targeting ISIS, which had virtually no footprint in Yemen 
before this bombing campaign and now is growing by the day.
  Here is what the State Department's annual counterterrorism report 
states about the civil war inside Yemen:

       AQAP benefitted during 2015 from the conflict in Yemen by 
     significantly expanding its presence in the southern and 
     eastern governorates. . . . The group was able to increase 
     its recruiting and expand its safe haven in Yemen. It also 
     insinuated itself among multiple factions on the ground, 
     which has made it more difficult to counter.

  I almost want to read that again because what our own 
counterterrorism report has told us is that the U.S. intervention in 
Yemen has resulted in the dramatic growth in the strength of AQAP, an 
element of Al Qaeda, a named enemy of the United States.
  We don't have a resolution that commits the United States to war 
against the Houthis. We have never given the administration the power 
to fight the Houthis. We have given the administration the power to 
fight Al Qaeda. There is still a pending effective authorization of war 
against Al Qaeda. Inside Yemen, there are the Houthis and there is Al 
Qaeda. A Saudi-led campaign, with participation from the United States, 
is fighting the Houthis--not a named enemy of the United States--while 
largely ignoring AQAP, which has grown in scale and scope.
  The State Department further affirms that both AQAP and ISIL have 
``carried out hundreds of attacks'' in Yemen last year, including 
suicide bombings, car bombings, assassinations, et cetera, et cetera.
  So why are we doing this? Why is the United States relatively quietly 
facilitating a Saudi-led bombing campaign in Yemen that is in 
contravention to our national security interests? Well, there are a lot 
of guesses as to why.
  One is that as a consequence of the Iran nuclear agreement, we have 
to make a renewed commitment to the Saudis to push back on Iranian 
influence in and around the region. There is no doubt that there is a 
very direct connection between the Houthis and the Iranians. Houthis 
are not an Iranian proxy, but there is a link, and there are going to 
be times where I would support U.S. efforts to push back on Iranian 
influence in the region. But in this instance, there is an indirect 
connection between the Houthis and the Iranians and all sorts of damage 
done to U.S. credibility and national security interests by 
participating in this coalition in the way that we are today.
  The second argument is that if the United States weren't involved, 
the targeting would be even worse. There wouldn't be 3,000 civilian 
deaths; there would be 20,000 civilian deaths if the United States were 
not helping. Well, that may be true, but that is not an invitation to 
be involved in a civil war, because U.S. intelligence and targeting 
could probably always mean that fewer civilians would be killed. The 
fact is that it is likely that Saudi Arabia wouldn't engage in this 
conflict or bombing campaign at all if it weren't for U.S. support.
  I think it is time for this body to do some oversight on a conflict 
that has been raging for over a year with billions of U.S. dollars at 
stake, the consequence being the dramatic increase of the power of 
terrorist organizations that have plots against the United States. 
Remember, AQAP is the most lethal and most dangerous element of Al 
Qaeda when it comes to potential threats directly to the U.S. homeland. 
It is AQAP that sits at the pinnacle of Al Qaeda's potential ability to 
strike the United States. Yet this Congress has remained almost 
completely silent as a bombing campaign funded and orchestrated in part 
by the United States has allowed for AQAP to get stronger.
  God forbid that AQAP is successful in attacking the United States and 
that they do it from a base in Yemen that was made possible by U.S. 
paid for and directed bombs dropped on that country.
  I think the White House has recently recognized the danger of 
continuing along this same pace. There are reports that the White House 
recently placed a hold on a pending arms transfer of U.S.-origin 
cluster munitions to Saudi Arabia over concerns about their use in 
Yemen in areas inhabited by civilians. But we have to do our due 
diligence and our oversight as well. If we are really serious about 
upholding our article I responsibilities to oversee the foreign policy 
of this Nation, then we have to add some conditions as well.
  The amendment that I have helped offer to the NDAA would place two 
pretty simple conditions on our support for the Saudi-led coalition. 
Importantly, my amendment doesn't prohibit the United States from 
continuing to fund this effort. If I had my druthers, I certainly would 
argue that we at least take a pause, but I understand that the 
consensus may not be here in this body to temporarily or permanently 
halt our support for this campaign.
  All I am suggesting is that we place effectively two conditions on 
our financial support and logistical support for this campaign inside 
Yemen:
  No. 1, that the Saudi-led coalition make a commitment that it is 
doing everything necessary to reduce civilian casualties and that they 
are conducting this campaign in concert with international humanitarian 
law. I can't figure out why anybody would oppose that. Let's just say 
that if we are going to fund this bombing campaign, those we are 
funding should make a commitment to try to kill fewer civilians instead 
of more civilians.
  Second, those in the coalition should make a commitment to use U.S. 
support to fight terrorist groups--Al Qaeda and ISIS--instead of just 
fighting the Houthis. The United States isn't at war with the Houthis. 
We haven't declared war on that group. We have declared war on Al 
Qaeda, and Al Qaeda is growing in its lethality, influence, and 
territorial control inside Yemen.
  Another condition, as contemplated by our amendment, is to simply 
have the President certify as a condition of continued support for the 
bombing campaign that the coalition is fighting terrorist groups 
alongside the Houthis.
  I think if I had 100 different conversations with Members of the 
Senate, I can't imagine there would be a lot of objection because of 
course we want to fight terrorism. Of course that is our priority, not 
the Houthis. And of course we want to do everything possible to reduce 
civilian casualties.
  I am grateful to Senator McCain, Senator Reed, and also Senator 
Cardin and Senator Corker, who have some jurisdiction here, too, that 
they are willing to take a look at this amendment. I am not offering it 
today because we are contemplating ways to structure the language to 
make it acceptable to the chair and to the ranking member.
  I will end this with a plea for the Senate to get back in the game 
when it comes to the oversight of this administration's foreign policy, 
in particular in places like Yemen. We have been out to lunch when it 
comes to authorizations of military force for a long time. There is no 
authorization right now to fight ISIS, but we are doing it. There is a 
decade-old authorization to fight Al Qaeda that we should renew. If we 
are going to be involved in spending all of this money and all of this 
time putting our soldiers and airmen at risk in the Yemen campaign, 
then we should authorize that, too, and if we don't authorize it, then 
the administration shouldn't do it.
  So this is not an authorization I am proposing; it is simply a couple 
of commonsense conditions. I hope we can find a pathway to get a vote 
on this amendment, and I hope this body has the courage in the future 
to step up and call a spade a spade and do our constitutional duty, 
perform our constitutional responsibility to provide

[[Page 8162]]

oversight of the foreign policy by this administration.
  Thank you very much, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4549

  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, it is no secret we are living in a 
dangerous time. We face a variety of threats to our security at home 
and abroad. We all agree we need to make investments in a strong 
military to protect and defend our national security. We have also come 
together in agreement on the need to take on our national security 
challenges and our challenges here at home in a balanced way.
  The bipartisan budget agreement that we passed into law last year was 
far from perfect, but it provided much needed certainty for our economy 
by preventing the ongoing threats of a government default or a 
government shutdown. It restored investment in both our national and 
our economic security, ensuring that every dollar of investment in 
defense was matched by a dollar of investment in a stronger economy and 
a stronger middle class.
  A balanced approach has served us well. It was a necessary compromise 
grounded in fairness that should guide our bipartisan work going 
forward. I understand that the chairman would like to give the Defense 
Department $18 billion more than they currently have from the American 
taxpayer, but I also know the American people need stronger investments 
in the challenges they face each and every day just trying to get 
ahead.
  If we are going to spend more on our military, then it is only fair 
that we also invest more in education, in job training, and workforce 
readiness to raise incomes and create a stronger economy for all. If we 
are going to spend more on the Pentagon, then it is only fair we also 
invest more in putting people to work and rebuilding our crumbling 
infrastructure and transportation and water infrastructure.
  I also know we have unfinished business in the Congress to bolster 
our vulnerable cyber security and to boost TSA security and to better 
support our law enforcement needs. We also have a responsibility to act 
on the public health crisis posed by Zika. We simply must do more and 
approve the necessary funding to prevent, protect, and respond to this 
serious and dangerous threat.
  We need to provide relief to the people in Flint, MI, who are still 
suffering from the impacts of lead contamination.
  I understand the military has asked for more helicopters and more 
fighter jets, but I also know that the American people need Washington 
to be stronger partners in the fights we are confronting in communities 
across our country today. That is why I am pleased to support Senator 
Reed's amendment to invest $18 billion to help our middle class, to 
keep our country safe, and to respond to the Zika virus, lead 
contamination, heroin, opioids, and the crisis that we are facing with 
drug abuse throughout our Nation.
  As I have traveled in Wisconsin, it is clear that we face a heroin 
and opioid epidemic. I know that many of my colleagues in the Senate 
face that same crisis in their home States.
  In Wisconsin, it is a big problem, and it demands a bold response 
from Washington. We are in the midst of a crisis that is touching far 
too many across our State. I have heard stories from family members who 
have tragically lost loved ones to addiction, and I have heard from 
people who are on the path of recovery.
  At one of my community meetings in Pewaukee, a father came up to me 
to courageously share a story of tragically losing his youngest son to 
addiction right after Christmas a couple of years ago.
  Recently, I heard from Leonard, from Colfax, WI, whose grandson 
Nathan was killed in a car accident when he was just 16 years old. The 
driver of the other car was under the influence of heroin at the time.
  I have also heard from a mother from South Milwaukee whose son 
suffered from addiction for 20 years. While he is now in recovery, at 
one point she found him on their bathroom floor, unconscious from a 
heroin overdose.
  Another mother from Mukwonago wrote to tell me that her own son's 
life was saved by paramedics who administered the drug naloxone during 
his overdose, allowing him to survive.
  The message is clear. Families simply cannot afford to wait any 
longer for help from Washington. It should not be easier for 
Wisconsinites to get their hands on opioids or heroin than it is for 
them to get treatment for their addiction.
  Today, as we consider increasing our spending for our military, let's 
not forget American law enforcement, first responders, health care 
providers, and citizens fighting on the frontlines to combat our opioid 
and heroin crisis. Let's not forget those struggling to get sober and 
to stay healthy.
  As communities continue to confront this epidemic on a daily basis, 
Washington needs to step up and needs to be a strong partner with 
State, local, and nonprofit efforts.
  The first place we can start is by making emergency investments for 
prevention, crisis intervention, treatment, and recovery efforts. I was 
proud to support bipartisan legislation that provides this funding 
because these resources are vital as we continue to respond to this 
national emergency. Unfortunately, this funding was blocked by 
congressional Republicans. This epidemic knows no political party, and 
it should be an issue that unites us all.
  We must do more because fighting this nationwide epidemic is a shared 
responsibility. Everyone has a role to play in addressing this crisis, 
and Congress should be no exception. The communities we represent need 
the resources necessary to win this fight.
  From talking to the people I work for in Wisconsin, I know that the 
opioid and heroin epidemic is a problem that neither law enforcement 
nor the health care system can tackle alone. The Federal Government 
cannot solve this problem by itself, just as we cannot expect State and 
local communities to address it by themselves.
  Together we must continue our fight and rise to this challenge. Let's 
work together to help our communities recover from this epidemic and 
stay healthy.
  The Senate will soon vote on the Reed amendment. This amendment would 
provide $1.1 billion to respond to the opioid and heroin crisis. The 
amendment would invest a total of $18 billion, equal to the amount of 
funding that my Republican colleague, Chairman McCain, is proposing to 
spend on the Department of Defense.
  The vote is about fairness and priorities. I believe that, if we are 
going to provide more funding to the Pentagon, we should also invest in 
our middle class, ensure our security here at home, and step up to the 
plate and provide the resources Americans need to respond to the 
serious emergencies they face here at home.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  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. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 4229

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on Monday I came to the floor to speak 
about the important provisions of the NDAA, sweeping reforms to the 
organization of the Department of Defense, to the Defense Acquisition 
System, and to the Military Health System. But I noted there was one 
challenge the Committee on Armed Services could not address in the 
NDAA: the dangerous mismatch between growing worldwide threats and 
arbitrary limits on defense spending in current law. This mismatch has 
very real consequences for the thousands of

[[Page 8163]]

Americans who are serving in uniform and sacrificing on our behalf all 
around the Nation and the world.
  From Afghanistan to Iraq and Syria, from the heart of Europe to the 
seas of Asia, our troops are doing everything we ask of them, but for 
too long we in Congress have failed to do everything we can for them.
  Shamefully, our military is being forced to confront growing threats 
with shrinking resources. This year's defense budget is more than $150 
billion less than fiscal year 2011, before the Budget Control Act 
imposed arbitrary caps on defense spending. Over the last 5 years as 
our military has struggled under the threat of sequestration, the world 
has only grown more complex and dangerous.
  Since 2011, we have seen Russian forces invade Ukraine, the emergence 
of the so-called Islamic State and its global campaign of terrorism, 
increased attempts by Iran to destabilize U.S. allies and partners in 
the Middle East, growing assertive behavior by China and the 
militarization of the South China Sea, numerous cyber attacks on U.S. 
industry and government agencies, and further testing by North Korea of 
nuclear technology and other advanced military capabilities. Indeed, 
the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, testified to the 
Armed Services Committee in February that over the course of his 
distinguished five-decade career, he could not recall ``a more diverse 
array of challenges and crises'' than our Nation confronts today.
  The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015--or BBA--provided our military 
servicemembers with much needed relief from the arbitrary caps on 
defense spending in the Budget Control Act. The BBA was a credit to the 
congressional leadership, and many of us supported it as a necessary 
compromise that provided our military with vital resources for fiscal 
year 2016 but was more constrained in the resources it could provide 
for fiscal year 2017. The fact remains that despite periodic relief 
from the budget caps that have imposed those cuts, including the BBA, 
each of our military services remains underfunded, undersized, and 
unready to meet current and future threats.
  By the end of this fiscal year, the Marine Corps will be reduced to 
182,000 marines, even though the Commandant of the Marine Corps, 
General Neller, testified last year that the optimal size for the force 
is 186,800. Facing a shortage of eight amphibious ships, the Marine 
Corps has been forced to examine options for deploying forces aboard 
foreign vessels, and a recent news report revealed the crisis in Marine 
Corps aviation. Years of budget cuts have left us with a Marine Corps 
that is too small and has too few aircraft. The aircraft it does have 
are too old and can barely fly--and only by cannibalizing parts from 
other aircraft. Pilots cannot train and receive fewer flight hours a 
month than their Chinese and Russian counterparts. Young marines are 
working around the clock to keep planes in the air with shrinking 
resources, knowing that if they fail, their comrades flying and riding 
in those aircraft could pay a fatal price.
  Another news report showed what it means to have the oldest, 
smallest, and least ready Air Force in history, as our Nation now does. 
The service is short 700 pilots and 4,000 maintainers for its fleet, 
which is smaller than its mission requirement and lacks the spare parts 
it needs to keep flying. It is so bad that airmen are stealing parts 
from retired aircraft in ``the boneyard'' in my home State of Arizona 
and even museum pieces just to get their planes back into combat. Our 
aircraft are aging, but even worse, our airmen are left ``burnt out'' 
and exhausted. This is the predictable consequence of years of 
relentless operational tempo combined with misguided reductions in 
defense spending. Today, less than 50 percent of the Air Force's combat 
squadrons are ready for full-spectrum operations. The Air Force does 
not anticipate a return to full-spectrum readiness for another decade, 
and this will only grow worse as budget cuts force the Air Force to 
retire more aircraft than it procures.
  The story is similar in the Army. The Army has been reduced by 
100,000 soldiers since 2012, bringing the Army to a size that Army 
Chief of Staff Mark Milley testified has put the Army at ``high 
military risk.'' As the size of the Army has shrunk, readiness has 
suffered. Just one-third of Army brigade combat teams are ready to 
deploy and operate decisively. Indeed, just two--just two--of the 
Army's 60 brigade combat teams are at the highest level of combat 
readiness. To buy readiness today, the Army is being forced to mortgage 
its future readiness and capability by reducing end strength and 
delaying vital modernization programs, and the result of budget cuts, 
force reductions, and declining readiness is clear. In an unforeseen 
contingency, General Milley testified in March that the Army ``risks 
not having ready forces available to provide flexible options to our 
national leadership . . . and most importantly, [risks] incurring 
significantly increased U.S. casualties.'' I repeat, ``significantly 
increased U.S. casualties.'' U.S. casualties are the men and women who 
are serving.
  By any measure, the fleet of 272 ships in the Navy today is too small 
to address critical security challenges. Even with recent shipbuilding 
increases, the Navy will not achieve its current requirement of 308 
ships until 2021, and there is no plan to meet the bipartisan National 
Defense Panel's unanimous recommendation for a fleet of between 323 and 
346 ships. A shrinking fleet operating at a higher tempo has forced 
difficult tradeoffs. Extended deployments have taken a heavy toll on 
our sailors, ships, and aircraft, and the Navy is no longer able to 
provide constant carrier presence in the Middle East or the Western 
Pacific.
  In short, as threats grow, and the operational demands on our 
military increase, defense spending in constant dollars is decreasing. 
The President's defense budget is $17 billion less than what the 
Department of Defense planned for last year. In order to make up for 
that shortfall, the military was forced to cut things it needs right 
now: Army fighting vehicles, Air Force fighters, Navy ships, Marine 
Corps helicopters, and critical training and maintenance across the 
services. As a result, the military services' unfunded requirements 
total nearly $23 billion for the coming fiscal year alone.
  Then there is a massive and growing defense bill that we keep 
pretending does not exist. Over the next 5 years, the Department of 
Defense says it needs a minimum of $100 billion above the Budget 
Control Act caps on defense spending, add to that nearly $30 billion in 
base budget requirements that are currently hiding in the emergency 
account for contingency operations--or OCO. That is another $150 
billion over 5 years.
  Put simply, according to our own Department of Defense and our own 
military leaders, our Nation needs an additional quarter of a trillion 
dollars over the current Budget Control Act caps over the next 5 years 
just to execute the current defense strategy--a strategy that I think 
many of us would agree is not doing enough to address the many global 
threats we face. My colleagues, we are fooling ourselves and we are 
misleading the American people about the true cost of defending our 
Nation. This makes no sense, and it is time to put a stop to this 
madness. That is what my amendment would begin to do.
  This amendment would increase defense spending by $18 billion. These 
additional resources would be used to restore military capabilities 
that were cut from the President's defense budget request; address 
unfunded requirements identified by military commanders, especially 
those aimed at restoring readiness in the military services; and 
support national security priorities consistently identified by 
military leaders and defense experts in testimony and briefings before 
the Senate Armed Services Committee.
  This amendment would increase the pay raise for our troops to 2.1 
percent. The President's budget request sets pay raises at 1.6 percent, 
which would make this the fourth year in a row that pay raises for our 
troops were below inflation. Our troops deserve better, and if this 
amendment passes, a 2.1-percent pay raise would match the employment

[[Page 8164]]

cost index and keep pace with private sector wage growth.
  This amendment prioritizes restoring military readiness. Over the 
past 5 years, the combination of expanding threats, high operational 
tempo, budget cuts, shrinking forces, and aging equipment have created 
a growing readiness crisis in our military. Indeed, of the $23 billion 
in unfunded requirements identified by the military services, almost $7 
billion were directly related to readiness. The NDAA took a first step 
in addressing these requirements by redirecting about $2 billion in 
targeted savings toward improving readiness. My amendment would add an 
additional $2.2 billion to help alleviate the readiness crisis and 
mitigate the growing risk posed to the lives of our servicemembers.
  This amendment would stop misguided cuts to the size of our military 
that are based on outdated assumptions about the world. For example, 
cuts to the size of the Army were set in motion before the Russian 
invasion of Ukraine and the rise of ISIL. There is simply no strategic 
logic for continuing these cuts now and placing a dangerous burden on 
the backs of our soldiers. That is why my amendment cancels the planned 
reduction of 15,000 Active Army soldiers. It also restores end strength 
in the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force, as well as the National Guard 
and Reserve. The amendment also prevents cutting a 10th carrier air 
wing.
  Our military confronts an ongoing strike fighter shortfall, which is 
especially severe in the Navy, and a readiness crisis across aviation 
in the services. This amendment would begin reversing this dangerous 
trend by increasing aircraft procurement, including 14 F/A-18 Super 
Hornets and 11 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.
  The amendment also accelerates Navy shipbuilding to mitigate a 
looming funding crunch in the next decade. My amendment provides the 
balance of funding necessary to fully fund an additional Arleigh Burke-
class destroyer. It also replaces funds for a third Littoral combat 
ship in the next fiscal year.
  This amendment supports the recommendations of the National 
Commission on the Future of the Army. In order to support combat 
aviation across the total Army, including the Guard and Reserve, the 
amendment includes funding for 36 additional UH-60 Black Hawks and 17 
LUH-72 Lakotas, 5 CH-47 Chinooks, and 5 AH-64 Apache helicopters. The 
amendment also includes advanced procurement funding for 10 more 
Apaches.
  Despite the fact that our troops are still in harm's way in 
Afghanistan, where the Taliban is making steady gains and ISIL is now 
present on the battlefield, the President's budget request funds less 
than two-thirds of the current level of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. 
Both Republicans and Democrats on the Armed Services Committee have 
recognized that U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan should be based on 
conditions on the ground. That is why this amendment provides full 
funding for the current level of 9,800 troops in Afghanistan to help 
our Afghan partners preserve the gains of the last 15 years and take 
the fight to terrorists who seek to destabilize the region and attack 
American interests.
  This amendment supports the European Reassurance Initiative by 
modernizing 14 M1 Abrams tanks and 14 M2 Bradley fighting vehicles for 
deployment to Eastern Europe to deter Russian aggression.
  The amendment also provides vital support for our allies and 
partners. My amendment provides $150 million in security assistance for 
the Ukrainian people to defend themselves against Vladimir Putin's 
aggression. It also provides an additional $320 million for Israeli 
missile defense programs, including cooperative programs with U.S. 
industry in order to protect one of our closest allies from a growing 
missile threat.
  In short, my amendment gives our troops the resources, training, and 
equipment they need and deserve to rise to the challenge of a more 
dangerous world.
  I would also add one important fact about this amendment. Whatever 
some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may say, this 
amendment is completely compliant with last year's budget agreement, 
the Bipartisan Budget Act. That legislation set binding spending caps 
on defense and nondefense discretionary spending, but the BBA set what 
the Congressional Research Service called nonbinding target levels of 
funding for overseas contingency operations, or OCO. In other words, 
the BBA gave Congress the flexibility to increase OCO spending to meet 
current and future threats if it saw fit. There is no doubt that this 
additional spending is needed, and this amendment provides it in full 
compliance with last year's budget agreement.
  That said, I understand that some of my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle believe we also need increases in nondefense spending. 
That is why the Senator from Rhode Island has offered a second-degree 
amendment that would add $18 billion in nondefense spending. This 
amendment has some laudable programs.
  I have long said that national security is not just the Department of 
Defense. I agree that we should provide additional funding for the 
Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and the Coast Guard. I would 
have added the CIA and some of our other intelligence agencies. But I 
do not believe there is any national security justification for adding 
billions in taxpayer dollars to a defense bill to pay for 
infrastructure, national parks, affordable housing programs, or 
agricultural research.
  While the Senate may not reach full agreement on the amendment by the 
Senator from Rhode Island, what I believe his amendment does show is 
that we all agree our military needs the additional resources my 
amendment provides.
  I do not know whether the amendment by the Senator from Rhode Island 
will succeed or fail, but if it does fail, my Democratic colleagues 
will be left to answer a simple question: Will you vote to give our 
military servicemembers the resources, training, and equipment they 
need and deserve? This vote will be that simple.
  Let's be clear what voting no would mean.
  Voting no would be a vote in favor of another year where the pay for 
our troops does not keep pace with inflation or private sector 
averages.
  Voting no would be a vote in favor of cutting more soldiers and 
marines at a time when the operational requirements for our Nation's 
land forces--from the Middle East and Africa to Europe and Asia--are 
growing.
  Voting no would be a vote in favor of continuing to shrink the number 
of aircraft that are available to the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps 
at a time when they are already too small to perform their current 
missions and are being forced to cannibalize their own fleets to keep 
our Nation's pilots flying at far higher risk.
  Voting no would be a vote in favor of letting arbitrary budget caps 
set the timelines for our mission in Afghanistan instead of giving our 
troops and our Afghan partners a fighting chance at victory.
  In short, voting no is a vote in favor of continuing to ask our men 
and women in uniform to perform more and more tasks with inadequate 
readiness, inadequate equipment, an inadequate number of people, and 
unacceptable levels of risk to their missions and themselves. This is 
unfair, and it is wrong. It is wrong.
  For the sake of the men and women in our military who, as we speak, 
are putting their lives on the line to defend this Nation, I hope my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle will make the right choice.
  For 5 years we have let politics, not strategy, determine what 
resources we give our military servicemembers. If we keep doing this, 
our military commanders have warned us that we risk sending young 
Americans into a conflict for which they are not prepared. I know the 
vast majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle recognize 
that the mistakes of the past 5 years have created this danger. Yet 
this is the reality our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are 
facing. It is

[[Page 8165]]

our urgent and solemn task to confront it.
  I say to my colleagues, Republican and Democrat alike, it doesn't 
have to be this way. We don't have to tolerate this anymore. Let's stop 
allowing politics to divide us when we should be united in support of 
our military servicemembers. Let's begin charting a better course 
today, one that is worthy of the service and sacrifice of those who 
volunteer to put themselves in harm's way on our behalf. Let's adopt 
this amendment to give our servicemembers the support they need and 
deserve, and in so doing, let's do our duty.
  Mr. President, I know there are speakers on this amendment. I hope 
they will come to the floor to discuss these amendments so that we can 
set a time--hopefully this afternoon, if not tomorrow--on this 
amendment and the second-degree amendment by the Senator from Rhode 
Island.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott). The Senator from Maryland.


                           Amendment No. 4549

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Reed-Mikulski 
amendment to respond to threats to our Nation by raising the caps for 
both defense and nondefense spending.
  All agree that we must defend the security of the United States. So 
many argue that we need more money for DOD, even though DOD already 
consumes 50 percent of all discretionary spending.
  Here is a quick tutorial on the Federal budget. Discretionary 
spending is $1 trillion. The other two big expenditures are interest on 
the debt and trust funds, particularly for earned benefits like Social 
Security and Medicare. But on discretionary spending--what we can 
decide to spend of that $1 trillion--about $500 billion goes to 
defense.
  We all know we are under some pretty big threats. We have fought a 
15-year war. Our men and women deserve the best training, the best 
technology, and support for themselves and their families. I don't 
argue that. But I want people who like to say I am a numbers guy--let 
them know what the numbers are.
  I take the position that we need to make sure our national security 
is what it should be, but I argue that not all of national security is 
in the Department of Defense. There are clear and present dangers to 
the people of the United States that are met by other agencies.
  When we passed the Bipartisan Budget Act last October, we agreed on 
parity. What we said was that there would be parity between defense and 
nondefense. What does that mean? That means defense gets about $500 
billion and nondefense, which is all of the other programs for the 
United States of America, gets the other roughly $500 billion. That 
means everything from Pell grants and the National Institutes of Health 
to Homeland Security, the FBI--I could go on and on.
  I am willing to support the need to defend America by allowing more 
spending on defense, but I take the position that America faces other 
threats as well, and we need to maintain the parity.
  The amendment being offered by Senator Jack Reed and me, as an 
original cosponsor, says yes to the $18 billion for defense needs and 
yes to $18 billion for nondefense needs so we can make the Nation safe 
and more secure.
  The Reed-Mikulski amendment does two things: It amends the 2015 
Bipartisan Budget Act to allow $18 billion of relief from sequestration 
for defense spending--the same amount in exactly the same way as 
described by my senior colleague from Arizona, the American war hero 
John McCain. But there is another $18 billion in the Reed-Mikulski 
amendment for nondefense spending because there are threats to the 
United States of America in addition to the ones the DOD confronts.
  So what does the Reed-Mikulski amendment fund? It funds those 
agencies that we think provide national security in addition to the 
Department of Defense. We are talking about more money for the State 
Department so they can do their diplomacy, so they can provide their 
Embassy security, and so we can meet the humanitarian need, where we 
are winning the hearts and minds of people and also making sure we help 
other people around the world. It will also give more to Homeland 
Security so that they can defend our coast and defend our borders, and 
it gives more money to the Department of Justice so they can track 
terrorists or keep an eye on things to make sure we don't have 
terrorist attacks here.
  There are also other threats to the United States of America, one of 
which is in the area of cyber security. That occurs in order to have 
the protection of dot-military and dot-gov to maintain our continuity 
of government, and dot-com, which is essentially the functioning of our 
whole country that is not government or military. My gosh, everybody 
has been hacked. OPM was hacked. Look at all that we lost. There are 
over 1 million hacks a week going on against government agencies by 
people who want to steal our trade secrets from the Patent Office and 
NASA and NIH and FDA. Why invent a cure for cancer when you can steal 
it?
  Then, of course, there is this threat to Zika. Make no mistake--these 
aren't cute little bugs coming from the Southern Hemisphere; these are 
bugs that when they infect people, particularly pregnant women, the 
results are horrific birth defects. Zika is a threat to the public 
health of the United States of America.
  There is the danger of heroin, and there is a danger in terms of 
other kinds of environmental dangers, such as what Flint, MI, is 
facing.
  We are also running significant deficits in research infrastructure 
and human infrastructure. I am going to elaborate on that in a minute.
  Why do we need the Reed-Mikulski amendment? Current spending caps are 
$20 billion below the fiscal 2010 level. Let's make no mistake--we 
appropriators aren't exactly these wild big spenders. Neither is the 
Budget Act. The Budget Act we are working under is at the level of 
2010. This amendment authorizes funding to meet real problems.
  Other Members will come to discuss that, but I want to make clear 
that if you want to keep our troops safe, the best way is to give peace 
a chance. It is not a song from another era. If we want to try to 
prevent war, to contain war, or to end war, we need diplomacy. That is 
what the State Department does around the world--quelling conflict, 
stopping proliferation, supporting treasured allies.
  We need to protect our people who work abroad, both our military and 
those who work at our Embassies. We need Embassy security. We need 
foreign aid to respond to real human needs while avoiding creating new 
enemies or new problems abroad. We need the State Department, but we 
also need Homeland Security. We need to protect our borders. We need 
the U.S. Coast Guard out there protecting us against drug dealers, 
terrorists, and helping to provide port security. We need Customs and 
Border Protection to secure borders. There are those who want to build 
a wall. I want to make sure we have the men, women, and technology to 
secure the borders. We need law enforcement to fight terrorism abroad 
and also to fight the drug dealers, human traffickers, cartel people, 
and organized crime. That is why we need the FBI's help and help from 
the Drug Enforcement Agency and the U.S. Marshals Service.
  This would authorize $1.4 billion for the Department of Homeland 
Security and the Department of Justice to make sure we have enough 
people and the right technology to protect us, in addition to the 
spartan situation we find in the Appropriations Committee. We need to 
be able to do that. When we look at cyber security, this is all hands 
on deck, all government on deck, all of us on deck. We do need DOD to 
help with threats to our military.
  We are increasingly relying on digital technology. I am so proud of 
what we do at the National Security Agency, the mother ship of talent 
focused on protecting the Nation. I am proud of the cyber command, but 
I am also proud of what we do through our cyber security in terms of 
what we do with the Department of Homeland Security, the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology, and others, coming up

[[Page 8166]]

with new information for security technology. There are a lot of 
numbers and data, but I will skip over that.
  Then there is the legacy of war. The legacy of war is what we owe our 
veterans. We just celebrated Memorial Day, honoring those who made the 
ultimate sacrifice, but we also extended our support for veterans 
everywhere.
  Did the Presiding Officer know that 60 percent of Veterans Health 
Administration facilities are over 50 years old? The facilities are 
aging in place. The VA itself has cataloged $10 billion worth of 
maintenance deficiencies and code violations at hospitals and clinics. 
We are not talking about new construction. We are talking about 
deficiencies in maintenance and actual code violations.
  The VA tells us about leaking roofs, mold growing, and other serious 
problems. I could go on. We all remember Walter Reed and how the years 
of neglected maintenance led to horrible conditions for our injured 
veterans and their families. They deserve better. They deserve 
facilities that are as fit for duty as they are.
  Then there is this other issue that I am very concerned about, which 
is in the area of research and development. Some of my colleagues might 
say: What the heck does that have to do with being in the military? We 
need research and development to be able to come up with the new ideas 
and new technologies to protect our Nation. Look at what the Department 
of Energy did. They are helping to develop big trucks that sip gas like 
a Honda Civic. What does that mean? It not only means our military can 
be more efficient, but we can also be more energy independent.
  The National Science Foundation has done so much in the way of basic 
research that it has enabled us to come up with whole new fields like 
nanotechnology or miniaturization that enables our people not only to 
have the smart weapons of war but the smart weapons against disease. My 
gosh, look at what we are developing just in terms of new technology.
  I don't know if the Presiding Officer is aware, but a lot of the work 
that was done at NASA, particularly in the area of space telescopes and 
rockets, helped us come up with the new digital mammography. Can you 
believe that? Because we studied space out there, we learned to protect 
our people right here, and it also helps others.
  I also want to talk about the fact that we do help some domestic 
programs here in the area of children and human infrastructure. People 
say: What does that have to do with defense? I will tell you what 
General Dempsey told me. General Dempsey told me this, and he told 
others. So it wasn't like a little thing with General Dempsey. GEN 
Martin Dempsey, former head of the Joint Chiefs and decorated war hero 
said: Senator Mikulski, did you know that for every four people who 
want to enlist in our military, only one is found fit to serve? Either 
people are physically unfit, can't read, or have had a problem with 
mental illness or addiction.
  We need to invest in our children. If for nothing else, we need to 
make sure all Americans are fit for duty, and that is why we need to do 
this.
  We have spoken eloquently as to why we need more money for Zika, the 
need to fight the addiction some have with opioid drugs, and the 
situation in Flint.
  Mr. President, as I said, I rise in support of the Reed-Mikulski 
amendment to respond to threats to our Nation by raising the caps for 
both defense and nondefense spending. All agree that we must defend the 
security of the United States. So many argue we need more money for the 
Department of Defense, DOD, even though DOD consumes 50 percent of 
discretionary spending. But I argue not all of national security is in 
Department of Defense. There are clear and present dangers to Americans 
met by other agencies, such as the Departments of Homeland Security, 
DHS, State, and Veterans Affairs, VA.
  The Bipartisan Budget Act, which passed with 64 votes in the Senate 
last October, was based on parity--equal relief from the consequences 
of sequestration--because there have been significant consequences of 
sequester for the American people.
  We are willing to support the need to defend America by allowing more 
spending on defense. But America faces threats at home as well, and we 
need parity in responding to those threats. That is why we are offering 
this amendment to say yes to $18 billion for defense needs and yes to 
$18 billion for nondefense needs, so we can make the Nation safer and 
more secure.
  The Reed-Mikulski amendment does two things. It amends 2015 
Bipartisan Budget Agreement to allow both: $18 billion of relief from 
sequestration for defense spending, the same amount authorized by the 
McCain Amendment, and $18 billion of relief from sequestration for 
nondefense spending, because there are threats that DOD can't address.
  What does the amendment fund? There are five categories: 1, national 
security spending, in addition to DOD, for DHS to defend our coasts and 
borders, Department of Justice to track down drug cartels and 
terrorists and State Department diplomacy, foreign aid, and embassy 
security; 2, funding to address urgent threats to America, including 
heroin, failing water infrastructure as exposed in Flint, the Zika 
virus, and cyber security; 3, physical infrastructure, including 
funding for roads, bridges, transit, and VA hospitals; 4, research 
infrastructure investments, creating jobs through new products and 
cures; and 5, human infrastructure, providing more resources to 
underfunded, but overwhelmingly passed, authorizations for education 
and college affordability, workforce training, and food safety. This 
amendment meets threats to America with new funding not available in 
our appropriations bills due to austerity imposed by budget caps.
  Current spending caps are $20 billion below the fiscal year 2010 
level, 7 years ago. These cuts have consequences. This amendment 
authorizes funding to meet real problems. Other members of the 
Appropriations Committee will come to the floor to discuss needs in 
their subcommittees, but first I want to talk about some of the dangers 
we are addressing with this amendment.
  The best way to keep our troops safe is peace. But we live in 
turbulent times, which means we need diplomacy. The State Department 
works around the world to quell conflict and help displaced and 
threatened refugees, stop weapons proliferation, and support treasured 
allies, especially those absorbing refugees from Syria.
  We need embassy security so we can bring our diplomats home safely. 
We need foreign aid to respond to real human needs while avoiding 
creating new enemies abroad. We need the State Department to help keep 
America safe. That is why the Reed-Mikulski amendment includes $1.9 
billion to continue the key security mission of the State Department.
  Communities in the U.S. face lone-wolf terrorists, drug traffickers, 
and smugglers. The Department of Defense doesn't fight domestic crime 
and terrorism. We need the Department of Homeland Security's Coast 
Guard protecting our coasts; Transportation Security Administration, 
TSA, keeping air travel safe; and Customs and Border Protection, CBP, 
securing the border. We also need the Department of Justice's Federal 
Bureau of Investigation, FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, and U.S. 
Marshals.
  This amendment authorizes $1.4 billion for DHS and the Department of 
Justice, so they can improve outrageous wait times at airports, meeting 
growing passenger volume, which is up 7.4 percent from 2015, without 
compromising safety; hire 2,000 officers on the borders; hire FBI, 
local police, and other Federal law enforcement to capture and 
prosecute criminals here in America--violent crime rose nearly 2 
percent last year after falling in 2 prior years. The Department of 
Defense can't do those things.
  I now want to turn to a threat that requires all hands on deck: cyber 
security. We need DOD to help threats to our military, which is 
increasingly reliant on digital technology, and threats from nation 
states. I am so proud of Cyber Command, Fort Meade, and the National 
Security Agency, NSA, the

[[Page 8167]]

mothership of talent, focused on protecting the Nation.
  But we have not done enough to protect ourselves at home. More than 
22 million Americans are at risk of identity theft because our own 
Office of Personnel Management couldn't keep their records safe. We 
need the FBI finding the criminals behind the keyboards, DHS advising 
Federal agencies, and the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology setting standards. And every agency needs to secure itself.
  Last year, Federal agencies reported 77,000 cyber incidents--up 10 
percent from fiscal year 2014. The Food and Drug Administration and the 
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office need to protect trade secrets, and the 
Social Security Administration needs to protect our personal 
information. That is why our amendment includes $2 billion for cyber 
security, so our nondefense agencies can join DOD in the fight.
  The Reed-Mikulski amendment helps America be more secure, but also 
safer. Americans are threatened daily with our roads and bridges 
failing, our waterways and ports needing modernization, and our transit 
systems clogged and crumbling.
  Demand for flexible transportation investments is overwhelming. Since 
2010, the Federal Aviation Administration's backlog has grown by $1 
billion to a total of $5 billion, risking breakdowns in air traffic 
control. Amtrak carries 30 million passengers each year, but can't stop 
deadly derailments. Here in the National Capital Region, while ``safe 
track'' repairs clog highways and side streets, the Department of 
Transportation tells us there is an $86 billion maintenance backlog for 
bus and rail systems nationwide.
  It is not just our transportation infrastructure that fails us; 60 
percent of Veterans Health Administration facilities are over 50 years 
old and facilities are beginning to show their age. VA has catalogued 
almost $10 billion worth of maintenance deficiencies and code 
violations at existing hospitals and clinics. VA even classifies these 
deficiencies as Ds and Fs, from leaking roofs to air handling systems 
in need of replacement.
  These deficiencies can cause serious problems. For example, old air 
handling units risk microbial contamination. If uncorrected, it could 
directly impact patient care because old ventilation systems would pump 
contaminated air into inpatient and outpatient areas. We all remember 
Walter Reed, where years of neglected maintenance led to horrible 
conditions for injured veterans and their families. Our veterans 
deserve better. That is why the Reed-Mikulski amendment includes $3.2 
billion to meet the physical infrastructure needs of the U.S.
  It is not just our physical infrastructure. America's research 
infrastructure has failed to keep pace with inflation. The National 
Institutes of Health, NIH, has lost more than 20 percent of its 
purchasing power since 2003. The history of economic growth shows we 
need civilian research to create new ideas and new jobs.
  The National Aeronautics and Space Administration built a methane 
detector for its Mars rover that is helping find dangerous gas leaks on 
Earth. The National Science Foundation funded two Stanford graduate 
students' effort to build a search engine that formed the basis for 
Google. The Department of Energy is helping big trucks sip gas like a 
Civic. Our NIH researchers are on the cusp of finding cures for 
Alzheimer's, diabetes, and cancer. That is why the Reed-Mikulski 
amendment includes $3.5 billion for research and development to create 
jobs and find cures.
  We can't cure cancer without investing in NIH. Now, we are looking at 
a new health crisis and a new threat to America: Zika. Americans--
particularly women and children--are in danger. The President has said 
$1.9 billion is needed to fight Zika and stopping it from doing any 
more harm. That funding is included in our amendment.
  As of June 6, there were more than 1,732 confirmed Zika cases, 
including 341 pregnant women, in the U.S. and its territories. The 
mosquitos that carry Zika are already in at least three of our States, 
and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that soon 
they will be in 30 States.
  There is still a lot we don't know, but what we do know for sure is 
that Zika has terrible consequences for women and babies. Scientists 
have confirmed the link between the Zika infection in pregnancy and 
serious birth defects in babies. The details about what Zika does to 
the brains of unborn children are truly horrific. Zika is a threat we 
can stop if we have the will and the funding to do so.
  Another emergency we can stop is the heroin epidemic. Every Senator 
and Governor has heard about the resurgence of heroin, which knows no 
boundaries--geographic or socioeconomic. Since 1999, the rate of heroin 
and opioid deaths quadrupled to an average of 78 deaths each day.
  The Senate passed the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, CARA, 
on March 10 with a vote of 94-1. Authorization is nice, but we need the 
money to fund law enforcement, treatment and recovery and better pain 
management so people don't get hooked on opioids in the first place. 
That is why the Reed-Mikulski amendment includes $1.1 billion for 
heroin response and treatment.
  Every community is dealing with addiction, but every State also 
worries about its water. The amendment also includes $1.9 billion to 
upgrade water systems throughout the U.S. Today, nearly 100,000 
residents of Flint don't have clean and safe drinking water. Up to 
9,000 children may have lead poisoning; some are already exhibiting 
signs in school. Flint's water is still contaminated because its pipes 
are permanently damaged.
  This is a national crisis. Flint is ground zero. Contaminated 
drinking water is happening in cities and rural communities across 
America. This is about the infrastructure and our failure to replace 
it. But it is about more than just replacing pipes. It is about the 
human infrastructure. This is about the lives of our children. What 
happened in Flint, MI is a failure of a State's government to protect 
its own people. The threat from our aging water systems is real, and it 
can't be solved by DOD.
  From our water infrastructure to our human infrastructure which 
includes the very troops who make up the DOD, we must do more to ensure 
readiness. Shockingly, General Dempsey tells us only one of every four 
recruits qualifies for duty. One can't read, one can't meet physical 
requirements, and one is disqualified due to legal or mental problems. 
They wanted to serve, but did we serve them?
  We have overwhelmingly passed authorizations to help. The Every 
Student Succeeds Act, which passed the Senate 85-12, aims to give kids 
a better K-12 education so they are ready for college, careers, or 
military service. But implementation is underfunded in the fiscal year 
2017 Labor-HHS-Education bill by more than $1 billion. We can't say we 
want to solve problems with great policies, but then fail to fund the 
solutions. That's why the Reed-Mikulski amendment includes $900 million 
for underfunded authorizations of education and college affordability, 
job training, and food safety policy.
  I talked at the beginning about how the State Department makes 
America safe with diplomacy and foreign aid. But I want to end with how 
foreign aid can help make us safer by helping the lost generation of 
children across the globe that is on the move and on the march.
  Nearly 60 million people worldwide are forced from their homes due to 
conflict and persecution. Refugees account for 20 million of those 
people, half of which are children. This is not an isolated problem. 
Millions of refugees are from Syria and Iraq, Yemen, South Sudan, 
Burundi, and other conflict zones. What do they have in common? They 
are desperately in need of life-saving assistance, including food, 
water, medical care, and shelter. Many will not be able to return home 
for years--if ever.
  These refugees cannot survive indefinitely on relief aid. The 
children need to attend school. The adults need jobs. These refugees 
are scared and ready to

[[Page 8168]]

face the unknown, rather than endure the brutality at home. They are 
only asking for one thing: help. All of us remember a time when, as a 
child, we needed help or our parents needed help. We also remember the 
names and faces of those who helped and those who refused.
  What do we think they are doing? Do we want these children to 
remember the United States as the people who helped, or as the people 
who refused? If we don't help, what are we creating? A generation of 
people who hate and distrust us because of our refusal when they were 
in need. We need the Reed-Mikulski amendment so our frugality doesn't 
create a generation that hates America.
  We all want to protect America. I support the troops. I support the 
Department of Defense. I support the men and women at Maryland's nine 
military bases. The Chairman of the Armed Services says they need $18 
billion more to meet the threats around the world. I support that 
effort, but only if there is parity. That is why we are proposing $18 
billion to meet threats to America not funded by the Department of 
Defense. I urge my colleagues to support the Reed-Mikulski amendment to 
raise the caps for both defense and nondefense items that defend 
America.
  I note that the distinguished majority leader is on the floor.
  If we are going to spend more money on defense, even though we 
already spend roughly $500 billion--about 50 percent of all 
discretionary spending--let's also spend money on other agencies that 
enable us to have a strong national security. Let's also put money into 
the other threats to the United States. Right now there is a public 
health crisis with Zika. There is a public health crisis with opioid 
and heroin addiction and a crisis in Flint, MI. Others are facing 
environmental problems. Let's make these other investments to make sure 
we keep America strong.
  I yield the floor by saying: Let's please vote for the Reed-Mikulski 
second-degree amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


             Unanimous Consent Requests--Executive Calendar

  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, our government has work to do, but when it 
comes to making sure that our courts have the judges they need, when it 
comes to making sure that the Federal agencies have the leaders they 
need, and when it comes to filling a vacant seat on the highest Court 
in this Nation, Senate Republicans refuse to do their job.
  Senate Republicans have a long history of obstructing President 
Obama's nominees. Earlier this week, I released a report documenting 
that long history. The Republicans have slowed down the confirmation of 
judicial nominees to a crawl--the people needed to resolve important 
legal disputes. They have stalled confirmations of key agency heads. 
These are the people needed to protect consumers, to protect our 
environment, and to defend our country.
  They are blocking Merrick Garland, a judge whom our colleague from 
Utah, Senator Orrin Hatch, previously called a ``fine man'' whom the 
President could ``easily name'' to fill the vacancy on the Supreme 
Court.
  Instead of working to make government function and more efficient, 
Senate Republicans have made it their priority to keep key positions 
empty for as long as possible--to hamstring efforts to protect 
consumers and workers, to delay efforts to hold large corporations 
accountable, and to slow down work to promote equality.
  The view of Senate Republicans seems to be pretty simple. If 
government isn't working for them, their rich friends, or their 
rightwing allies, then Senate Republicans aren't going to let it work 
for anyone. But it isn't too late. They still have time to put aside 
their extremism and start doing what they were sent here to do.
  Start with district court judges, the men and women who resolve 
disputes over how government works and whether the Constitution or 
Federal laws are being respected. They do an enormous amount of work. 
Their work is not political. Democratic and Republican Senators have 
worked with the President to select these nominees.
  As of today the Senate Judiciary Committee has cleared 15 people who 
were nominated for seats on the Federal district courts. These nominees 
have the support of Democrats and Republicans. They are ready to serve 
their country. One of them is from Massachusetts. We need our judge. 
This Nation needs its judges. So let's vote.
  Mr. President, I rise today to ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to executive session to consider the following 15 nominations: 
Calendar Nos. 357, 358, 359, 362, 363, 364, 459, 460, 461, 508, 569, 
570, 571, 572, and 573; that the Senate proceed to vote without 
intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed; 
that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be 
in order to the nominations; that any related statements be printed in 
the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's 
action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we continue to process judicial 
nominations, and we have done so even when a majority of the Republican 
conference did not support the nominee, as was the case with the 
district court nominee from Maryland, whom we confirmed before the 
recess. That is an example of a judge confirmed that a majority of 
Republicans did not approve of.
  Just this past Monday, the first day after the recess, we confirmed 
two more article III judicial nominees. We tried to confirm them before 
the recess, by the way, but our Democratic colleagues would not clear 
them.
  President Obama has had many more judicial nominees confirmed than 
President Bush did at the same point in his Presidency. We will 
continue to process his judicial nominations, but the minority is not 
going to dictate to the majority when and how we will do so.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Ms. WARREN. I ask through the Chair if the majority leader will yield 
for a question.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yielded the floor.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I am asking if the majority leader will 
yield for a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader does not have the floor.
  Ms. WARREN. All right, I will just ask my question.
  On Monday, I wanted to come to the Senate floor to make the request I 
just made, but I guess the majority leader was taking a lot of heat 
about judges and Donald Trump's racist statements about them and didn't 
want to draw any more attention to the Republicans' unprecedented 
blockade of judicial nominations. So the Republicans offered me a deal: 
Just go away, and we will confirm two Court of International Trade 
judges.
  The Court of International Trade is pretty important. It handles 
trade enforcement cases, and nearly half of that court has been empty 
for a year because Republicans refused to do their jobs.
  These two uncontroversial nominees have been twisting in the wind for 
336 days. They are highly qualified, honorable lawyers who are ready to 
serve their country. So on Monday, I took the deal. The Republicans 
released two hostages, and the Senate confirmed them by a voice vote, 
without objection--not a single objection nearly a year after they were 
nominated.
  Today, the majority leader isn't offering to release any hostages, 
and my question for the majority leader is, What happened between 
Monday and today?
  I yield the floor if the majority leader wishes to respond.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we tried to confirm the article III 
judges she is referring to before the recess and our Democratic 
colleagues would not clear them.

[[Page 8169]]

  I don't know whether the Senator from Massachusetts has additional 
UCs to propound or not, but if she does, I would respectfully suggest 
she propound them.
  Ms. WARREN. Then I certainly will.
  Mr. President, last week the majority leader wrote an op-ed in the 
Wall Street Journal, and it was titled, without a hint of irony, ``How 
the Senate Is Supposed to Work.'' In his article, Senator McConnell 
declared: ``On issues of great national significance, one party should 
simply never force its will on everybody else.'' He pleaded that ``it's 
not an act of betrayal to work with one's political adversaries when 
doing so is good for the country.''
  Senator McConnell agreed to confirm two highly qualified judges on 
Monday because it served his political interests. Today, he doesn't 
feel like it, so he forces his will on everyone else. That is not how 
the Senate is supposed to work.
  The Constitution is clear. The Senate's job is to provide advice and 
consent on the President's judicial nominees. There is no asterisk that 
says ``only when the majority leader has an embarrassing political 
problem'' or ``except when the President is named Barrack Obama.''
  It is not what the Founders had in mind because it is small, it is 
petty, and it is absurd. For these district court nominees, the U.S. 
Senate should be asking one question and one question only: Are these 
judges qualified or are they not qualified? That is it. But that is not 
what is happening in the U.S. Senate. Instead, good people twist in the 
wind, hung up as political hostages, and that is undermining the 
integrity of our courts.
  So if you will not give all 15 judges their votes, let's at least 
have a vote on the 9 district court nominees who had their Judiciary 
Committee hearings last year. Senator Toomey called for some of these 
nominees to be confirmed last month. All of these nominees have been 
waiting for at least 6 months--almost 200 days--since their hearings. 
When President Reagan was in office, almost no uncontroversial nominees 
took longer than 100 days to confirm from the day they were nominated. 
The delay is ridiculous. Give them their votes.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
executive session to consider the following nine nominations that have 
been pending since 2015: Calendar Nos. 357, 358, 359, 362, 363, 364, 
459, 460, 461; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening 
action or debate on the nominations in the order listed; that the 
motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with 
no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to 
the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record; 
that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and 
the Senate then resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, so our 
colleagues are not confused, looking at the Bush years to today and the 
Obama years to today--apples and apples--President Obama has had 327 
judges confirmed, and President Bush had 304. President Obama has not 
been treated unfairly. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, right this minute, right here on the floor 
of the Senate, we face one of those ``issues of great national 
significance'' that the majority leader wrote about in the Wall Street 
Journal. It is an exploding number of judicial vacancies.
  The Washington Post recently reported:

       Of 673 U.S. district court judgeships, 67--or 10 percent--
     are vacant under President Obama, nearly twice as many as at 
     this point of Republican George W. Bush's presidency and 50 
     percent higher than at this time under Bill Clinton or George 
     H.W. Bush.
       The number of federally designated district court 
     ``judicial emergencies''--where seats carry particularly 
     heavy caseloads or have been open for an extended period--is 
     also roughly double what it was in May 2008 and May 2000.

  Addressing those emergencies is good for the country. Keeping our 
courts functioning is good for the country. Confirming nominees who 
have the support of Republicans and Democrats is good for the country.
  But just a minute ago, the majority leader blocked confirmation of 
all 15 noncontroversial judges who are waiting for votes. That is not 
putting the country first; that is putting politics first. It is 
forcing the will of a small number of extremist Republicans on the 
entire country, and the integrity of our judicial branch is suffering 
for it.
  So let me try this again. Surely we can agree to confirm the four 
oldest nominations on this list--two Democratic recommendations and two 
Republican recommendations. They all had hearings in September, 9 
months ago. What are we waiting for? Give them their votes.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
executive session to consider the following four nominations: Calendar 
Nos. 357, 358, 359, and 362; that the Senate proceed to vote without 
intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed; 
that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be 
in order to the nominations; that any related statements be printed in 
the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's 
action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I object, unfortunately.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise once again to discuss the state of 
our Nation's healthcare system.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts still has the 
floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Oh, she does?
  Ms. WARREN. Yes.
  Mr. President, I wish I could say that I am surprised by this, but I 
am not surprised.
  The Republican leader can say whatever he wants today, but he has 
made his intentions very clear when it comes to President Obama. On the 
eve of the 2010 elections, Senator McConnell said that ``the single 
most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a 
one-term president.''
  Well, President Obama won reelection, but Senate Republicans have 
still stalled, delayed, and blocked his nominees. Since they took 
charge of the Senate last year, these Republicans are on pace for the 
lowest number of judicial confirmations in more than 60 years.
  So can we at least confirm one noncontroversial district judge?
  The nominee on the list who has been waiting the longest is Brian 
Martinotti. New Jersey needs this judge. He was nominated a year ago. 
He has been twisting in the wind for 9 months since his confirmation 
hearing. Give him a vote.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
executive session to consider Calendar No. 357; that the Senate proceed 
to vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination; that 
the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table 
with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in 
order to the nomination; that any related statements be printed in the 
Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's 
action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. I will 
certainly look at this and see what can be done, but at this present 
time, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, Brian Martinotti deserves better than 
this. All these nominees deserve better than this. Merrick Garland 
deserves better than this, and the American people deserve better than 
this. We will keep fighting to try to get the Senate Republicans to do 
their job.

[[Page 8170]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have only been here 40 years, and this 
happens every time at the end. They have not been mistreated. The fact 
is that they have had more judges confirmed in 7 years than President 
Bush had in a full 8 years, and they are going to have more judges. But 
it is the majority leader's determination as to when those judges will 
come up and when they will be confirmed, and I think he has been doing 
it on a regular basis.
  I hate to go back in time, but I could go back in time and show how 
the delays on the Republican judges with the Republican Presidents were 
just unbelievable. All I can say is that it is nice to raise these 
fusses around here--and I don't blame the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts because she is doing her job--but let's allow the 
majority leader to do his job as well.


                       ObamaCare and the Economy

  Mr. President, I rise once again to discuss the state of our Nation's 
health care system and what we can likely expect in 2017 under 
ObamaCare. This is a good subject following on to the judgeship 
discussion because the Democrats are acting so offended and so 
mistreated. Well, I hate to tell you how we were mistreated time after 
time after time when we had Republican Presidents.
  Let me just talk about what we can expect in 2017 under ObamaCare. 
However, before I delve into that discussion, it is important to 
provide a little context.
  Roughly 7\1/2\ years ago, President Obama was sworn into office, 
riding on a wave of good will, optimism, and so many promises about 
what he was and was not going to do that it was difficult to keep 
track. Seven and a half years may not be all that long in the grand 
scheme of things, but it is surely long enough to evaluate the economic 
successes and failures of a single administration. Let's take a look at 
what we have witnessed in the years President Obama has been in office.
  Since January 2009, our Nation's gross domestic product has grown at 
an average annual rate of only 1.7 percent. Think of that--1.7 percent 
in 7\1/2\ years--and the overall trajectory hasn't been improving. In 
the last quarter, our economy grew at the slowest rate in 2 years.
  At the same time we have experienced that slow GDP growth, wage 
growth has been sluggish and median household income in the United 
States has actually gone down under this President, declining at an 
annual rate of almost one-half of 1 percent. Slow economic growth, slow 
wage growth, declining household incomes--and this past Friday we 
learned that the economy added only 38,000 jobs in May, with job gains 
having averaged a sluggish 112,000 per month since President Obama took 
office.
  When are the American people going to wake up and realize these 
people are not doing their job? Not only are they not doing their job, 
they are doing a lousy job.
  There is not a new normal here either. They are trying to pass off 
that they have low unemployment rates. They are not counting all the 
people who just don't even look for a job anymore. If you count them, 
it is well over 9 percent. That is what we have seen in the Obama 
economy.
  Sadly, even that doesn't tell the whole sad story. Along with a 
stagnant economy and declining household income, the cost of health 
care has gone up almost exponentially--and exponentially in some areas. 
Health care premiums for families with employer-based coverage--one of 
a handful of benchmarks for measuring the costs of health care in the 
United States--have gone up by an average of 5 percent a year. That 
trend, according to both the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint 
Committee on Taxation, is expected to continue over the next decade, 
with premiums in the individual health insurance market going up at an 
even faster rate.
  Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve projects that growth in our economy 
will range between 1.8 percent and 2.3 percent, well below historic 
averages and far below the growth rate for average health insurance 
premiums.
  Do you think we are going to do any better with a new Democratic 
President? I don't think so. She has already admitted she is going to 
follow the principles of this President and the program of this 
President.
  Long story short, under this President we have seen mostly lackluster 
economic growth and a decline in household income while the cost of 
health insurance has eaten up an increasingly larger share of American 
families' earnings and an ever-growing percentage of our national 
economy. According to most credible projections, it is only going to 
get worse. There are still 30 million people without health insurance, 
about the number there was when they came up with this colossal 
wasteful mess of the health care bill.
  This correlation of economic stagnation and exploding health care 
costs is particularly damning for this President because his signature 
domestic achievement--his top priority after being elected--was passage 
of the so-called Affordable Care Act, a law that was, among many other 
things, supposed to bring down health care costs.
  The word ``affordable'' is actually the operative word in the name of 
the law. Yet it is probably the least suitable word for describing what 
this statute has actually done to our health care system.
  It has now been 3 years since the Affordable Care Act was fully 
implemented and in effect. And in all 3 of those years, average health 
insurance premiums in the United States have gone up by double-digits 
in many markets. Insurers are currently making rate decisions for year 
4 of ObamaCare, and from what we have seen thus far, things are only 
going to get worse. According to one analyst, the average of the 
weighted rate increases requested from 28 States and the District of 
Columbia is approximately 20 percent.
  Indeed, over the past few months, it seems as though we have seen a 
new headline every day that highlights the failure of ObamaCare to 
bring down premiums.
  For example, we have recently learned that in New York patients may 
see an average premium increase of 17 percent on the ObamaCare 
insurance exchanges. In fact, one major New York carrier requested a 
rate hike of 45 percent over what they charged last year--or should I 
say this year, I guess.
  In the State of New Mexico, one major insurer requested a premium 
increase of more than 83 percent, and those States are not outliers. 
Average premiums in Mississippi could increase by over $1,000 next 
year, according to recent reports. Insurers have requested average 
hikes of nearly 14 percent in the State of Washington. A major carrier 
in New Hampshire just requested an increase of more than 45 percent for 
2017. Another insurer has submitted a request to raise premiums by more 
than 36 percent in Tennessee. People in other States, such as Virginia, 
Florida, Maine, Oregon, and Iowa, are all facing potential double-digit 
increases in premiums, with some in the 30-percent to 40-percent range.
  Keep in mind these are just the States we know about thus far. More 
numbers and almost certainly more requested premium hikes will be made 
public very shortly. We are still waiting to see specifically what will 
happen for the people of my home State of Utah. Still, we already know 
that many Utahns are facing difficulties. I hear from my constituents 
all the time on these issues.
  For example, a citizen from Roosevelt, UT, recently wrote to me to 
say this about her experience with ObamaCare:

       I can't afford the monthly premiums, and as long as I have 
     to pay extraordinary deductibles, I may as well just continue 
     paying for the visits as I go and not have to worry about the 
     extra money I would have to spend in premiums, which are 
     outrageous. . . . I realize I will have to pay a penalty when 
     I do my taxes, but it will be way less than the premiums I 
     would have had to pay had I signed up for this health care 
     debacle.

  Another constituent named Richelle from Santa Clara, UT, said this in 
a recent letter:

       As I am looking into purchasing the health care coverage we 
     need; I'm finding that it is totally ridiculous. The 
     catastrophic health care we were planning for a few years ago 
     no

[[Page 8171]]

     longer exists because of the health care laws. In order to 
     get LEGAL health care for me, my spouse, and my 3 eligible 
     children, I'm being required to pay close to $1300 per month! 
     These policies still require huge deductibles and will 
     quickly eat up the money we've put away for such things.

  Unfortunately, these stories are not isolated incidents. People 
throughout the country are growing more and more concerned about the 
cost of health care under the President's health care law. Even without 
the skyrocketing cost of health care, millions of American families 
would still be struggling to make it under the Obama economy. Yet for 
these people, all of whom have had to suffer through a period of 
stagnant economic growth and declining incomes, these rising health 
care costs are, at best, a slap in the face and, at worst, a nail in 
the financial coffin.
  I have spent a lot of time on the Senate floor over the last 6 years 
describing what has gone wrong with the Affordable Care Act. I will not 
detail the substantive and structural problems with the law here today. 
Instead, I will just repeat what should be clear to everyone here. This 
law is not working. This law has imposed even greater burdens on 
virtually all the participants in our health care system, and this law 
is failing middle-class and lower income families throughout the 
country.
  We can and we must do better, but in order to do so, we will have to 
turn our focus to the biggest problem that patients face as they 
navigate our health care system, and that is cost. We must bring down 
costs. Any future attempts at health care reform that are not cost-
focused are, in my view--and I suspect the view of most Americans--a 
waste of time and effort.
  As for me, my position is pretty clear. I support the repeal of 
ObamaCare, and I support a replacement that makes sense. I have worked 
with colleagues to come up with a replacement proposal designed 
specifically to contain costs for patients and consumers. A number of 
health care experts have concluded that our proposal, which we have 
called the Patient CARE Act, would do just that.
  Of course, there are other proposals out there. For example, I know 
the House majority is working on a proposal, and I am anxious to see 
what they come up with. As chairman of the Finance Committee, which has 
jurisdiction over many major aspects of our health care system, I have 
begun reaching out to stakeholders to discuss in more detail the 
current premium prices and what needs to be done to address it.
  But let's be clear. To bring down these rising health care costs, we 
will need significant buy-in from my friends on the other side of the 
aisle. Quite frankly, I don't know how any of them can read the recent 
news reports about premium hikes and hear the stories from their 
constituents about skyrocketing health care costs and think ObamaCare 
is working just the way it was supposed to.
  As I have said before, my hope is that at some point my colleagues on 
the Democratic side will begin to acknowledge the failures of 
ObamaCare. At the very least, they should acknowledge it has failed to 
bring down costs for patients and consumers and is, in fact, driving up 
costs.
  Until that acknowledgment comes, I plan to do all I can to make the 
case to the American people about the need for change and to work with 
anyone who is willing to put in the effort to address these monumental 
problems. I look forward to speaking more about these issues in the 
coming weeks and months.
  With all the economic struggles the American people--particularly 
those in the middle class and with lower incomes--have had to deal with 
under the Obama administration, the last thing families in the United 
States need is the continuation of the skyrocketing health premiums we 
have seen as a result of ObamaCare. I plan to do all I can to reverse 
this trend.
  I know there are some on the Democratic side who knew from the 
beginning it wasn't going to work. Then they would be able to throw 
their hands in the air and say: It is not working. We need to go to 
socialized medicine or one-size-fits-all Federal Government control of 
health care in this country. Anybody who thinks that is going to be a 
good system, boy, have I got a bridge to sell you.
  The fact is, as bad as our system was before, it was better than what 
this is. We can make it better, but it is going to take Democrats and 
Republicans coming together in the best interests--and get rid of the 
stupid politics involved--to come up with a program that will work for 
the American people.
  I can tell you this, the American people cannot live on the slow 
growth that is currently going on. We cannot compete with the rest of 
the world on the slow growth that is currently going on, and it has 
been a slow growth for all of President Obama's time in the Presidency.
  It wasn't all his fault, but--by gosh--there could have been programs 
that would have made it better had they just relied a little bit more 
on the free market system that has made this country the greatest 
country in the world.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to 
talk against an amendment that would undermine the spirit of 
bipartisanship we have cultivated with the last several budget deals 
without fully addressing our national security and domestic needs and 
to speak in support of an alternative that would do so much more to 
protect our families, improve our national security, and build on our 
bipartisan budget deal in a truly fair and responsible way.
  As I will go into a bit more, for an amendment to a bill focused on 
ensuring our Nation is prepared to meet future challenges here at home 
and across the world, the Republican amendment ignores too many 
priorities in the nondefense world that are critical to our Nation's 
security. It only supplements defense priorities, leaving by the 
wayside domestic challenges, such as the Flint water crisis, the Zika 
outbreak, the opioid crisis, and domestic law enforcement agencies like 
the FBI, to say nothing of investments that we also know improve 
national security in the long run, such as education, health care, a 
strong economy, and more. It casts aside the principles we laid down in 
our bipartisan budget deal that we should be building on, not tearing 
down.
  I want to spend a minute or two on that last point, since it is a 
very important one. As many of us have said before, a budget is far 
more than simply numbers on a page. A budget truly is a statement of 
values, of priorities, of the kind of nation we are, and the kind of 
nation we want to be. That is why I am so proud that following the tea 
party government shutdown back in 2013, Democrats and Republicans were 
finally able to come together, break through the gridlock, and reach a 
bipartisan budget deal.
  Our deal wasn't perfect. It wasn't what any of us would have written 
on our own, but it was a critical step in the right direction. It 
restored investments in health care and education, in research, and 
defense jobs. It halted the constant lurching from one crisis to the 
next, and it showed the American people that we in Congress can make 
things work when we work together.
  We were able to get a bipartisan deal because we kept to a core 
principle, which was rolling back the cuts evenly across defense and 
nondefense investments. That wasn't the only hurdle, but it was a big 
one. Both sides agreed that we may not agree on everything, but we had 
to solve the problem in a fair and balanced way and one that addressed 
all of our budget challenges here at home and throughout the world.
  Establishing this principle and then sticking to it in our 2015 deal 
is what helped us make the progress we have made and build a foundation 
for continued work. I believe it is a principle we need to stick to if 
we want that good work to continue.
  We reached a 2-year bipartisan budget agreement just last fall. If 
the Senate is about to open that bipartisan

[[Page 8172]]

budget agreement on this bill, then we should be doing it in a 
thoughtful and productive manner that allows us to build on the 2-year 
deal and address a fuller range of security issues.
  Unfortunately, the amendment we are going to vote on either later 
tonight or tomorrow would move us in the wrong direction when it comes 
to this productive bipartisan work. Instead of building on our deal, it 
tries to circumvent it. Instead of working together to truly restore 
investments, it uses a gimmick to pretend to restore investments, and 
instead of working with Democrats to restore cuts on the domestic side 
that support our national security as well, it only supports the 
defense side and leaves far too much behind. I don't think that is 
right, and I think we can actually do better.
  If Republicans truly want to work with us to build on our budget deal 
in this bill in a way that truly prepares us to respond to domestic and 
foreign challenges facing our country, we have an alternative. Our 
amendment, the Democratic alternative, would restore investments that 
help workers, the middle class, veterans, and families all across our 
country at an equal level to the defense priorities. It would invest in 
critical priorities that clearly keep our country safe, including 
supporting the operations of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and 
supplying the Transportation Security Administration with the tools 
they need to keep our airports and other transit hubs safe that have 
become a target for terrorist attacks and allow us to tackle the opioid 
crisis that is devastating communities in my home State of Washington 
and across the country.
  It would provide the resources for us to respond to the water and 
lead issues in Flint and many communities in our Nation, and provide 
resources to help us address so many of the challenges facing our 
workers, our families, our communities, and our middle class and do it 
in the fair and balanced way that we all know works by building on the 
bipartisan budget deal and treating defense and nondefense equitably 
and fairly.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic amendment so we can 
restore these investments in critical defense and nondefense programs 
and invest in priorities that keep us safe and strengthen our 
communities and the middle class. Having a powerful military is 
important to our country's safety but so is access to safe drinking 
water and so are TSA agents protecting our transit hubs, Zika research 
to prevent further spread of this disease, and so much more.
  I hope we can work together to build on our bipartisan progress, 
stick to our bipartisan principles, and keep our country moving in the 
right direction.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I came to the floor to talk about the 
visit of Prime Minister Modi of India and to speak about an amendment I 
have, but listening to the Senator from Washington, I have to express 
my sense of wonder and amazement at our Democratic colleagues for whom 
no amount of money, no growth in the size of government is too much.
  While I am certainly sympathetic to the amendment by the Senator from 
Arizona which would increase defense spending at a time when there is a 
greater array and a greater diversity of threats to our country than 
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has said he has seen in 
his 50-year career, the idea that because we want to take care of the 
No. 1 priority of the Federal Government, which is national security 
and self-defense, we have to somehow use that to leverage more spending 
in other areas that are nondefense-related is simply unacceptable, 
particularly at a time when our national debt is $19 trillion.
  The other day, I happened to be speaking to a young woman who said: 
Well, what would you tell me to tell my peers?
  She must have been--who knows how old she was--in her early twenties.
  She said: What would you tell me to tell my peers about politics and 
why they should care and why they should be involved?
  I told her: Well, if I were you, I would be angry. I would be mad. 
Your generation should be angry with my generation because what we have 
done is spent a bunch of money we did not have, and we have simply 
passed the debt and the bill off to your generation.
  It is not just the $19 trillion in debt, it is also the pathway to 
Social Security and Medicare, the promises we made to our seniors for a 
secure late-in-life lifestyle that simply can't be kept unless we 
support and reform Social Security and make it sustainable for future 
generations.
  So this is not the main reason I came to the floor to speak today, 
but I just have to express my own sense of wonder and amazement at our 
Democratic colleagues who want to continue to spend money we don't have 
because they know that if you end up spending this money they are 
asking for, it is just going to be added to the bill that is going to 
be paid for by the next generation, people like these young folks down 
here who are pages. That is, frankly, immoral, and it is not 
acceptable.


                  Visit by the Prime Minister of India

  Mr. President, the main reason I came here to speak--today was really 
a historic day in Washington, DC, and in the relationship between the 
Government of the Republic of India and the United States of America. 
Like many of my colleagues, I had a chance to listen to Prime Minister 
Modi speak to a joint meeting of Congress this morning over in the 
House of Representatives. I was reminded of how far our two countries 
have come in such a relatively short period of time.
  My first visit to India was about 10 years ago. I had been encouraged 
to go because of some of my constituents back in Dallas, TX, who 
started the Dallas Indo-American Chamber of Commerce. We actually have 
a large Indian-American community in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area and also 
in Houston. Around the State of Texas, we probably have some 250,000 to 
300,000 Indian Americans--part of the diaspora Prime Minister Modi 
talked about before and of which he said he was particularly proud and 
which binds our two countries together.
  When I came back from my trip to India, at the same request of the 
same constituent--he encouraged us to create a U.S. Senate India 
caucus, knowing that our two countries had a lot more work to do 
together. I am happy to say that 10 years ago, when Secretary Clinton 
was Senator Clinton, she and I cofounded the U.S.-India caucus. Later 
on, Chris Dodd--after Senator Clinton became Secretary Clinton--and 
then after Senator Chris Dodd left, Senator Mark Warner is my current 
cochair. We have about 30-some-odd members of this U.S.-India caucus, 
which demonstrates again the acknowledgment of how important this 
relationship has become.
  I am grateful for the concrete manifestation--the evidence of that 
relationship, things like the fact that, as Prime Minister Modi said, 
India joins the United States in more joint military exercises than any 
other country.
  We also have a robust civil nuclear agreement that allows for the 
exchange of critical information and technology. This has been a long 
time in coming. I think it was 2008 when the Bush administration 
advocated for this civil nuclear agreement which now, apparently, is 
coming to fruition. I noticed that President Obama and Prime Minister 
Modi announced the construction plans for a number of nuclear 
powerplants in India. India is a vast country--I think he mentioned 
1\1/4\ billion people. Many of them simply don't have electricity and 
live very impoverished lives. So it is an acknowledgment of our close-
knit relationship but also of the need that India has, in order to 
advance and lift its own people to better living conditions, to have 
access to the electricity that is going to become available once these 
nuclear powerplants are constructed.
  Of course, our economies continue to rely upon each other 
increasingly for trade and investment. As more and more American-made 
goods or American agricultural products are sold to

[[Page 8173]]

India--with the rising middle class, there are going to be more and 
more people purchasing those goods and services. Of course, that is 
going to help improve jobs here in the United States, as well as the 
quality of life there.
  Perhaps most importantly, we share growing cultural ties. Fast-
forward to today. When Prime Minister Modi spoke today, he talked about 
his vision for his country's future, including deepening and broadening 
the relationship with the United States. That is a very welcome 
statement by the Prime Minister.
  Unfortunately, over the last few years--7 or 8 years of the Obama 
administration, many of our friends and allies around the world have 
questioned our commitment to those friendships and these alliances, 
and, conversely, many of our adversaries have become emboldened when 
they see America retreating from its engagement with the rest of the 
world. We do not need American boots on the ground around the globe, 
but we do need American leadership around the world. There is no other 
country with benign intent like the United States that can fill that 
leadership void.
  So I was glad to hear Prime Minister Modi talking about the 
importance of it. I hope we all respond appropriately. Of course, this 
is important not just today, but it will become increasingly important 
in the 21st century. The safety and stability of the Asia-Pacific 
region in particular will depend more and more on the safety and 
stability of India. Here in the Senate, we have had ample opportunity 
to work with our friends from India in order to guarantee that goal.
  There are a couple of pieces of legislation I have cosponsored with 
Senator Warner, my cochair of the U.S.-India caucus, that will bolster 
our ties with India.
  The first would help bring India into an existing trade structure, 
the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum, or APEC. It would direct 
the Department of State to develop a strategy to facilitate India's 
membership status in this organization, and it would urge APEC nations 
to support India's membership. As the world continues to become more 
interconnected through trade, we need to make sure like-minded 
countries with economic might, such as India, have a seat at the table.
  Of course, it is a truism that countries that do business together 
and trade together are much less likely to engage in some conflict 
against each other. So trade is good for national security and internal 
security as well, not just for the economy.
  The second bill I have introduced will help cement India's status as 
a major partner of the United States. It would strengthen our defense 
and technology ties and also make sure that India is equipped to handle 
the myriad threats coming its way. The truth is that India is at risk 
for many of the same sort of threats that the United States is. This 
morning, Prime Minister Modi mentioned the cyber threat. Certainly that 
is true, but we know India is a target for international terrorist 
attacks. Indeed, the Prime Minister mentioned the terrible attacks that 
occurred in Mumbai not that many years ago, when terrorists came in and 
killed a bunch of tourists there in Mumbai or Bombay.
  I am proud to cosponsor an amendment to the Defense authorization 
bill filed by the junior Senator from Alaska. This amendment would 
encourage greater military cooperation with India. Even though it is at 
an alltime high, it could certainly be improved through more joint 
military operations and officer exchanges. This is really an incredible 
source of American diplomatic power and strength, particularly in our 
military-to-military relationship.
  I can't tell you how many times I have been to countries around the 
world, the way I was, for example, in Cairo, Egypt, sitting there 
talking to the President of Egypt, President Sisi, who was talking 
about his military training here in the United States, in San Antonio, 
TX, my hometown. Of course I had to ask him how he likes the Tex-Mex, 
Mexican food. He said it was a little too spicy for him.
  The point is that these military-to-military exchanges with countries 
like India and Egypt and others are a great opportunity for us to 
establish friendships and connections, and people who invariably--and I 
am sure nobody dreamed that then-Military Officer Sisi would become the 
President of Egypt, but he rose in that leadership position and now is 
the leader of that large country of some 92 million people. So those 
military-to-military relationships, those joint military exercises with 
countries like India are very important.
  Let me close on the Prime Minister's comments this morning by 
thanking him publicly. It speaks volumes to his commitment to further 
the U.S.-India relationship. I look forward to continuing to play a 
small part in that effort through the work of the Senate India caucus.
  As Prime Minister Modi's visit illustrates, the United States cannot 
afford to ignore our friends and those who share common values, as 
Prime Minister Modi spoke. The world is simply too unstable and too 
dangerous. Plus, it is just plain stupid not to maintain a good 
relationship with your friends and allies and people who share similar 
values. But we also have to look at the other side of the coin, and 
that is to push back on our adversaries. And as I said, unfortunately, 
over his 8 years in the White House, the President has seemed somewhat 
detached from both of those--either encouraging stronger relationships 
with our friends and allies by demonstrating that we have their back 
and that we can be trusted or by pushing back on our adversaries when 
they take aggressive action. As I mentioned earlier this week, his 
first Secretary of State, Secretary Clinton, regularly lacked the 
ability to call a spade a speed, particularly with regard to challenges 
like our enemy in North Korea.
  Not long ago--I guess it was in August of last year--I had a chance 
to visit with Admiral Harris, the four-star head of Pacific Command. 
When we asked him to list the danger spots in the world that keep him 
awake at night, he mentioned North Korea as the No. 1 threat. Of 
course, some of that may be the proximity of his command there in 
Hawaii. But the fact is, North Korea is ruled by a dangerous dictator 
who has nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles, which 
is a dangerous mix.
  Of course, unfortunately, under Secretary Clinton's watch and 
President Obama's watch, this has gotten nothing but worse. As we 
continue to consider the National Defense Authorization Act, we do have 
a chance to take up some of the slack, though. We are not without tools 
here in the Congress to fill in some of the gaps and to correct some of 
the misguided foreign policy prescriptions of the White House.
  One way we can do that is by supporting an amendment I have filed 
that will help us hold Iran accountable for its recent hostile actions 
against U.S. sailors. We all remember that last January, two Navy 
riverine boats with 10 American sailors on board made headlines around 
the world when they strayed into Iranian waters. They were taken 
captive by members of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps after 
being forced at gunpoint to surrender. The sailors were blindfolded. 
They were hauled back to Iranian soil. They were interrogated and 
detained. The IRGC henchmen documented the event at almost every step 
along the way, quickly broadcasting those videos and photos of the 
captured sailors among state-run media outlets.
  This is not in line with international norms. This is not the way we 
would treat a foreign country's navy if the same thing happened, and 
the Geneva Convention makes clear that when military forces from one 
country detain military forces of another those prisoners are to be 
protected from public displays of humiliation, not to be used for 
propaganda purposes, which is what the American sailors were used for. 
Something called the doctrine of innocent passage--a concept of what is 
known as customary international law--provides that all vessels have 
the right of travel through another country's territorial waters to get 
from point A to point B swiftly.

[[Page 8174]]

  It is pretty apparent that Iran violated our sailors' right to 
innocent passage, but we haven't heard a peep out of the White House. 
Instead, the administration has patted itself on the back and claimed 
their bad Iran deal somehow brought these sailors home safely. They 
claim that somehow the enhanced credibility they had from the misguided 
Iran nuclear deal somehow gave them a seat at the table and an ability 
to negotiate the release of our own sailors from Iran. This is 
absolutely ridiculous, and it ignores the crux of the problem. These 
sailors shouldn't have been taken captive in the first place.
  While the President may leave this kind of aggression unanswered, we 
don't have to. My amendment would require the President to answer two 
simple questions: Did Iran's hostile actions in January violate 
international law? And were any Federal funds paid to the Iranian 
regime to effect the release of our sailors? In other words, did the 
Obama administration pay ransom to bring them home? I think the 
American people, certainly our taxpayers, have a right to know whether 
the Obama administration used their hard-earned tax dollars to pay 
ransom to a rogue regime like Iran's.
  If the administration does find that Iran violated international law, 
sanctions on those Iranians responsible would be triggered under my 
amendment. It is absolutely imperative we not turn a blind eye to 
aggression by the world's thugs, tyrants, and renegades, which is, 
unfortunately, what we seem to do too often.
  We need to hold Tehran accountable in some way. Since the President, 
so far, has refused to do that on his own, it is incumbent on Congress 
to lead on this issue, and my amendment is a good start. I am hopeful 
my colleagues will support it so Iran knows, even if it doesn't have to 
answer to the President of the United States, it will have to answer to 
the American people through their elected representatives in Congress.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Wasteful Spending

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, it is week 45 of ``Waste of the Week,'' 
where I have been here talking about waste, fraud, and abuse, and 
trying to find ways to save taxpayers' dollars. As I have said a number 
of times, our efforts since 2010 are to go big to address the real 
fiscal situation that this country is dealing with, the runaway 
entitlements, the ever-shrinking discretionary pot, and the deficit 
spending, leading to borrowing that has taken us from $10.7 trillion 
just in my first term here now in six years--from $10.7 trillion--to 
$19.2 trillion. I don't think any of us can contemplate what $19.2 
trillion really means. But what it means in terms of its impact and 
effect is that we are passing on to future generations a debt that they 
will not be able to repay without serious consequences to our economy 
and serious consequences to their pocketbooks. That is a speech for 
another time.
  ``Waste of the Week'' is simply an attempt, since we have not been 
able to address the larger issue, to look at documented examples, 
exposed by inspector generals, the Government Accountability Office, 
and other agencies of clear waste, fraud, and abuse that has used 
taxpayers' dollars in an improper way. So this 45th edition now 
highlights close to $170 billion, exceeding our goal of $100 billion 
considerably and with no end in sight.
  We are debating last week and this week the National Defense 
Authorization Act, critically important for our national security and 
to provide for the kinds of things our military needs to be an 
effective military. So I think it is appropriate to raise the issue 
that no agency is sacrosanct. While I am a committed supporter of 
national defense, while I served on the Senate Armed Services Committee 
for a 10-year period of time in my former time in the Senate and I 
support much of what the military does, it is important that we point 
out that they are not sacrosanct from falling into the category of 
abuse, waste, or money that should have been better accounted for and 
spent. So I am taking this opportunity during this debate to point out 
the fact that each agency of the Federal Government needs to be looked 
at, even those that we favor and want to support. Obviously, any penny, 
dime, nickel, dollar, or more saved from something that need not be 
spent is something that can help our soldiers be better trained and can 
help us have a stronger military. If not needed there, it can used to 
offset other programs within the Federal Government, or, most 
importantly, hopefully sent back to the taxpayer or reduced from the 
taxes that we take from the taxpayer.
  Today I want to talk about the acquisition process. The Department of 
Defense weapons acquisition system is the process by which DOD, or the 
Department of Defense, procures weapons systems or related items from 
various defense contractors. They include the design, development, 
deployment, and disposal of weapons used by our military.
  Since 1990, the Government Accountability Office has included the 
Department of Defense's weapons acquisition system on its annual High 
Risk List. Let me explain that. The High Risk List, which is put out 
every two years by the Government Accountability Office, or GAO, lists 
spending that falls under the category of, frankly, ``Why are we 
spending this money in the first place?'' or ``Let's look at how we are 
spending this money and see if it can be spent in better and more 
efficient ways.'' It is looking at programs' vulnerabilities to waste, 
fraud, and abuse.
  One of the biggest problems with the system is that frequently 
significant dollars are spent on weapons programs that end up never 
being completed. Between 2001 and 2011, the Department of Defense spent 
$46 billion on a dozen different weapons systems programs that were 
never completed. Let me repeat that: $46 billion of money was spent on 
programs, well intended, but never completed for various reasons. I 
want to use just one example of that $46 billion category, and that is 
a program that was initiated but was never finished and is an example 
of how taxpayers' money can be spent in significant amounts and with no 
results.
  It was clear that after 9/11 we ought to be looking at the 
Presidents' transportation. In this case, Marine One is the helicopter 
the President uses when transferring to Andrews Air Force Base to climb 
aboard Air Force One or is used overseas for special short trips. 
Marine One was deemed to be somewhat behind on its technological 
capabilities, especially its communications and security capabilities. 
The Department of Defense initiated an effort to build a new 
helicopter; yet the requirements and engineering needed for this new 
helicopter design were never finally fixed. As the process went forward 
and the money was being spent, new ideas and new technologies came into 
play, and the thought was this: Well, let's add this here and change 
that there and incorporate this into it. As a result, the original 
engineering that had been mapped out, the requirements, the design were 
not followed. There were constant changes, constant pleas that we need 
to spend more money, we need to do more and more. On and on it went. 
Without those fixed and agreed-on guidelines, the Department of Defense 
continued putting more add-ons over the years until, ultimately, the 
helicopter became so weighted with so much new technology and security 
position adjustments and so forth that the helicopter's mission 
capability was compromised. As such, the program finally had to be 
scrapped in 2009, and the cost to the taxpayers was $3.7 billion--spent 
for no purpose whatsoever. It was a good idea, a good intent, probably 
the right thing to do, but without a sufficient acquisition system and 
development system, without an ability to say: Look, let's get this 
thing fixed in terms of what we want it to look like, what we want it 
to be, and let's go forward with it, and

[[Page 8175]]

perhaps there are a few adjustments that we can make. But, certainly, 
it would be better to incorporate the new technologies at a rate that 
we thought we could accomplish within a limited amount of time, rather 
than simply ongoing--2001, 2002, 2003, all the way to 2009--and finally 
say we are never going to get there, ending up, as I have said, with 
$3.7 million of waste. That is just one example.
  In the 2014 report, the Government Accountability Office found 
problems like this have persisted within weapons acquisitions for 
decades. GAO found that many defense programs are launched before 
officials have enough information needed to determine whether the 
proposed program is even viable. Meaning, there is a mismatch between 
the new defense system's wish list of all the things the DOD would like 
to have versus the current technology that would be able to provide 
within the current financial and time constraints for developing 
programs. In turn, the program sometimes gets the green light to move 
forward with unrealistic costs and timetables, leading
to increased costs and development delays.
  The Government Accountability Office and military experts have 
emphasized the need to increase DOD staff training on how to properly 
estimate project needs and technology capabilities before launching a 
project. Now, we would think this would have been simple. We would 
think this would be the guidelines from the very beginning: You don't 
start a project until you estimate what the project needs and the 
technological capabilities and the capabilities of providing those 
needs before you start. But there is a history within the Department of 
Defense--and, frankly, within policies of defense contractors--to get 
it started. Once it is started, they are not going to turn it back 
down. History is replete with Department of Defense acquisitions that 
have incorporated changes that, once started, you can't stop the thing. 
Then the narrative turns from this: Why are we doing this in the first 
place, because we never fixed the requirements and fixed the cost and 
agreed not to go beyond that cost? It turns into this: Oh, well, we 
need to spend more. We can't turn back now because otherwise we have 
wasted that money.
  The Presidential helicopter is a perfect example. We are talking 
about $3.7 billion. On and on it goes. I have just given one example.
  I am pleased that Senator McCain and Senator Reed, the chairman and 
ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, have 
acknowledged this. This National Defense Authorization Act of fiscal 
year 2017 makes some very important reforms to the DOD acquisition 
process. They have taken note of this, and the committee has taken note 
of this. Before us now is this bill--the bill that sits on my desk and 
on every desk here and that we are debating and adding amendments to 
and hopefully will finish this week. In this legislation we are 
debating and talking about and hope to pass are a number of reform 
processes and reform legislation to help us address these problems. 
This legislation would reform the current regulatory process and make 
it easier for companies to compete for DOD contracts in order to boost 
competition and lower costs. In addition, the bill would increase 
training--maybe this is the most important of all--for those at the 
Department of Defense who plan and oversee the acquisition process. It 
will put greater emphasis on technological innovation, which could help 
save money while spearheading new, cutting-edge defense systems. That 
is the goal. That is the goal we have outlined in this legislation and 
why we need to support this legislation. It is an example of how the 
Senate can tackle waste, fraud, and abuse right now, and I encourage my 
colleagues to support these proposals.
  Having said that, let me add, as we do each week, $3.7 billion for 
failed efforts to develop the new helicopter for the President, which 
brings our total taxpayer price tag to nearly $176 billion--not small 
change. Think what we could do with that if it was spent wisely or, 
more importantly, if we didn't have to take it from the taxpayer in the 
first place.
  Mr. President, having said that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                   Presidential Tax Transparency Act

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to discuss the 
Presidential Tax Transparency Act--legislation that I have authored 
with Senators Warren, Bennet, Kaine, Baldwin, and Boxer. The reason I 
proposed this legislation is that ever since Watergate, it has been 
routine for Democratic and Republican Presidential nominees to release 
their tax returns. In effect, this has been the norm; this has been the 
standard operating procedure for almost four decades. That is because 
the American people expect transparency when it comes to a Presidential 
candidate's actions and values.
  They are running for the highest office in our land. They are running 
to be Commander in Chief for the most powerful Nation in the history of 
the world. When transparency is the overwhelming expectation of the 
American people regarding the Presidency, my view is it ought to be the 
law.
  We are in the midst of a Presidential election. The nominating 
conventions are weeks away. One of the candidates who has become his 
party's presumptive nominee has thus far refused to release his tax 
returns. In my view, this is a clean break from decades of traditions 
in our elections. It is a rebuke of the overwhelming majority of 
Americans, including a majority of Republicans, who are demanding 
openness and honesty from their Presidential candidates of both 
political parties on this issue.
  The reason is that tax returns give the American people a lot of 
straightforward, honest answers. It is not just about what rate you 
pay; it is about whether you even pay taxes. Do you give to charity? 
Are you abusing loopholes at the expense of hard-working middle-class 
families? Do you keep your money offshore?
  The fact is the tax return shines a light on your financial 
integrity. It will show if a person is trying to game the system, for 
example, by having their company pay for personal vacations on a 
private jet. Certainly, that is something far removed from the reaches 
of most hard-working families.
  My view has been that running for President is pretty much like a job 
interview. Every candidate has to stand up before the public and show 
that they have the temperament, the background, and the character to 
lead our wonderful country and be Commander in Chief. I believe that 
after decades of tradition, releasing tax returns is a big part of the 
process.
  When it comes to a candidate's financial background in taxes, I don't 
think the public should have to take somebody's word for it or just 
accept the kind of boasting you see on some of these shows that get 
wide viewership. The public has a right to know the facts, and the 
public has a right to know the truth.
  The proposal that my colleagues and I have proposed is pretty simple. 
It says that within 15 days of becoming the nominee at the party 
conventions, the candidates would be required to release at least 3 
years of tax returns. If a nominee stonewalls the law and refuses, then 
the Treasury Secretary would share the returns with the Federal 
Election Commission, and that Commission would make them public online. 
There would be an opportunity as well for redactions, which, in effect, 
are changes when appropriate.
  When Presidents nominate individuals for Cabinet seats and executive 
branch jobs within the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee--the 
Treasury Secretary, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Social 
Security--those nominees all submit 3 years of tax returns for the 
committee to review. When there is a need and where it is appropriate, 
information from those returns is made public. Remember, that is the 
standard for people who would serve under the President of the United 
States. In my view, the Commander in Chief ought to be required to do 
better. The fact is, nominees have traditionally released a lot more 
than 3 years. So probably it is a bit modest,

[[Page 8176]]

and a number of people who have looked at the proposal support what our 
colleagues and I are doing, like the transparency, like the disclosure. 
A number of them have said: You really ought to think about going 
further.
  I think colleagues know that I probably have spent as much time here 
in the Senate as any colleague trying to promote ideas and policies and 
get beyond some of the partisanship that dominates these debates. I am 
talking about candidates on both sides being required to meet this new 
bar. The same rules would apply to all nominees from both parties.
  A word about this notion of requiring a Presidential nominee to do 
this: I certainly wish that it weren't necessary to have a law 
requiring this. That would be my first choice. The fact is, it 
shouldn't take a law because this has been the norm; this has been the 
expectation.
  This is how I came to believe that a law was necessary. You volunteer 
to run for President of our wonderful country. You are not required to 
do it; you volunteer to do it. In my view, when you volunteer, there 
has been this norm, and there has been this expectation. Since 
Watergate, almost 40 years, there has been this expectation that you 
would make public your tax return. The failure to do so deviates from 
the norm, deviates away from transparency and in favor of secrecy. So 
my view is, when a candidate for President of the United States is not 
willing to disclose their taxes voluntarily and deviates from the norm, 
deviates from the understandable expectation the American people have, 
then I think you need a law, and that is why I have proposed it.
  For these four decades, the American people have been pretty clear: 
If you are a major party's nominee to be the leader of the free world, 
you do not get to hide your tax returns.
  This is the first time I have discussed our proposal here on the 
floor. I hope our colleagues will support the Presidential Tax 
Transparency Act, and I hope our colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
will agree that the American people deserve this guarantee of tax 
transparency that I have described this afternoon.


                   Recognizing Hermiston High School

  Mr. President, I am going to speak briefly on one other matter that 
was particularly striking last week when I was home. I am going to talk 
for a few minutes about the wonderful work taking place at Hermiston 
High School in Eastern Oregon.
  Last week, I had the honor of visiting the terrific Career and 
Technical Education Program--the CTE Program--in Hermiston, and I had a 
chance to watch some very impressive students in action. One of the 
programs I visited was the Columbia Basin Student Homebuilders Program 
that got off the ground with a small amount of State financial 
assistance. The reason I wanted to discuss it this afternoon is, I 
think that this program can be a model, not just for my State, but for 
the Nation. Students enrolled in the homebuilders program work with 
local construction professionals to actually build houses for their 
community. Under the supervision of a teacher, students learn all 
facets of planning, designing, and building a new energy-efficient home 
within a budget.
  During my visit, Liz, a star high school senior and a future 
engineer, gave me a tour of this year's home. It is nothing short of 
gorgeous. At the end of the school year, this beautiful, custom-
designed home is going to be sold to a lucky family. Students are 
involved in every bit of the process--from planning and design, to the 
actual construction, to the marketing and sale of the house. Revenue 
from the sale of the home funds the next project, so the next round of 
students in the program get to participate with no future funding 
required.
  Hermiston High School's career and technical education courses 
demonstrate to students that their community leaders are committed to 
helping them prepare for a successful life right out of high school. 
One student I met, Hannah, told me about a recreation and tourism 
project that involves starting a hospitality business. She is working 
to expand her line of cupcakes to meet customer demands.
  I note that the Presiding Officer has a great interest, as I do, in 
promoting recreation. That is why I have introduced the RNR bill, the 
Recreation Not Red-Tape Act.
  I was struck by Hannah's expertise.
  I note that the Presiding Officer probably saw this last Sunday. The 
Denver Post had an extraordinary article describing recreation as the 
economic engine of the future. I am not saying that just because they 
were kind to the RNR bill, but they talked about the promise of 
recreation and tourism, particularly for our part of the world.
  I was so impressed with Hannah. I said: I am going to send you the 
RNR bill, and I would appreciate it if you and your colleagues would 
look for additional ways to cut the red-tape and promote recreation and 
tourism in Oregon, and throughout the West, and support our existing 
and future businesses.
  The fact is that too many of our students are not graduating high 
school on time and far too many are unprepared for the workforce. 
Research has shown that students enrolled in career and technical 
education courses graduate from high school at a higher rate. In fact, 
the students at Hermiston High School told me their homebuilders 
program made them want to show up for school.
  I am committed to increasing graduation rates in Oregon and across 
the country, and I think one of the best ways to do it is to support 
programs like the one in Hermiston, because I think it is tailor-made 
to achieve this goal.
  Funding for Perkins Career and Technical Education Act courses is a 
way to make sure that programs like the one I just saw at Hermiston can 
be started around the country, but funding for these programs has been 
decreasing since 1998. At the same time, there is bipartisan consensus 
that career and technical education programs are important, not just 
for kids who want to be homebuilders but for all students. It seems to 
me that in overhauling the failed policies of No Child Left Behind, the 
Senate made a choice to move away from the era of over-tested ``bubble 
kids'' and towards an era of well-rounded, multi-skilled high school 
graduates. I am glad to see that the Senate HELP Committee is working 
hard on a proposal to reauthorize this career and technical education 
program, known as the Perkins Act. The last time it was reauthorized 
was in 1998. So I am going to work closely with my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to keep pushing for a new bill.
  The fact is that the educators I saw last week are ambitious by any 
measure. They saw that their students were not graduating with the 
skills necessary to be successful in their future school and work 
lives. So the local educators started partnerships with local 
architects, engineers, and other professionals. They created a unique 
program that blends innovative classroom instruction with real-world 
application. We have businesses directly engaging with young people. 
Not only do they show what kinds of jobs are available in the 
community, but they also prove that school is an important 
steppingstone in preparing students for the real world.
  I have been in public service for a while. It is such a tremendous 
honor to represent Oregon in the Senate. But I will tell you, watching 
the way a small community in eastern Oregon, Hermiston, has come 
together and made a commitment to their young people is special. It is 
truly what we call the Oregon way.
  I will close by way of saying that I am grateful to the school, 
Hermiston High School, for allowing me to visit. I will do everything I 
can to take the student homebuilder program that I saw last week and 
spread the word about what the potential is here. They already sold one 
house for a very healthy price, and I think we would be wise--again 
here in the Senate, Democrats and Republicans--to come together and 
support career technical education programs like the ones I saw in 
Hermiston and urge all of us here in the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, 
to

[[Page 8177]]

support Federal and State assistance for these kinds of programs, 
career and technical education programs, for even more students from 
one end of our country to the other.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


      Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, for some time, including times on this 
floor, I have said that the choice between a clean environment and a 
strong economy is a false one. Some people say you can't have a clean 
environment and a strong economy at the same time. I just don't think 
that is correct. TSCA is an acronym for Toxic Substances Control Act.
  The TSCA reform legislation that we approved in this body last night 
is proof of the fact that we can have a cleaner, safer, and healthier 
environment and also have a strong economy. They go together, and 
maybe, when I finish my remarks, folks will understand why that might 
be true.
  Every day in this country manufacturers use a variety of chemicals. I 
am told there are tens of thousands of chemicals on this planet. It is 
in the air, in the ground, in the water, and in our bodies. 
Manufacturers use these chemicals to make everything from carpets--like 
the carpet we are standing on--to cosmetics, water bottles, and dish 
washing soap.
  Former President Gerald Ford signed the Toxic Substances Control Act 
of 1976 and said it was landmark legislation. He said that this is huge 
legislation in terms of protecting the environment and public health. 
He said it was intended to give the EPA the authority to monitor, test, 
and regulate the chemicals that pose a risk to human health or the 
environment. That was the deal. Over the past four decades, since 
Gerald Ford signed that legislation into law, the Toxic Substances 
Control Act has never worked as intended, leaving the public at risk 
for toxic exposures and the private sector with a broken regulatory 
process that has undermined innovation. Frankly, it led to a lot of 
uncertainty and lack of predictability.
  As a recovering Governor, I know that among the things we need in 
order to have a better and more nurturing environment for job creation 
and job preservation is to make certain that businesses, whether large 
or small, have predictability and certainty. When the Toxic Substances 
Control Act passed 40 years ago, it did not provide that predictability 
and certainty.
  In fact, for the last 40 years, I think the EPA has fully vetted six 
toxic substances. Imagine that--six in 40 years. In the last 20 to 25 
years, there were none. In the meantime, States have stood up and said: 
If the Federal Government is not going to do it, we will do it. Now we 
have a patchwork quilt of State requirements. We have businesses--not 
just chemical businesses but a wide variety of businesses--in this 
country that are trying to comply with laws in dozens of States, and 
the Federal standard that we set 40 years ago just does not work.
  For a while, the Toxic Substances Control Act has been broken. That 
is a polite way of saying it. Over the past 39 years, we have learned a 
lot more about toxic chemicals. We have learned about how they can 
cause harm to our environment. They can cause harm to public health, 
and we also learned how best to identify and protect against these 
risks.
  More than 3 years ago, two of my colleagues--one a Democrat, Tom 
Udall of New Mexico, and the other a Republican, Dave Vitter of 
Louisiana--wrote something called the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical 
Safety for the 21st Century Act. That is a mouthful, isn't it?
  Frank R. Lautenberg was a Senator from New Jersey for many years, 
whose birthday I remember to this day. He is now deceased, but his 
birthday is January 23, and the reason why I know that is because that 
is when my birthday is. This is an issue we actually shared a strong 
interest in doing something about.
  My recollection--it is hard to remember when people move around from 
desk to desk--is that his seat was back here behind where I am standing 
today.
  My colleagues Tom Udall and David Vitter wrote a bill and named it 
after Frank R. Lautenberg because this is an issue he cared a lot 
about. He tried several times to write legislation that could be 
enacted to take the 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act from 1976 
and bring it into the 21st century and help it become effective and 
make sense for the digital age.
  The bill written by Senators Udall and Vitter reforms the old Toxic 
Substances Control Act, and it does it in ways to better protect the 
public--to protect us, our families, our businesses, and so forth. It 
is also designed to create a more manageable regulatory framework for 
American businesses and innovators so they have some predictability and 
certainty with what they are dealing with. Whether they happen to be 
doing business in Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Wyoming, Idaho, or 
California, they would have some certainty as to what the rules of the 
road were going to be for toxic substances or the chemicals they might 
be using in their processes.
  After the bill was introduced by Senators Vitter and Udall, I worked 
closely with both of them for more than a year as a member of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee. We led a number of meetings, 
had many discussions, and we were always focused on securing enhanced 
protections for public health and the environment while providing 
certainty and predictability for American businesses.
  I focused especially on language to secure provisions that would 
protect children, pregnant women, and workers from toxic risk. The 
provisions I especially focused on included ensuring that the EPA had 
access to information in order for them to assess safety risks.
  A third area that I looked at was to enact something to allow States 
to enforce Federal toxic safety law. If the EPA wasn't doing its job, 
could there be a State backstop in a way that made sense? I think that 
was not an unreasonable thing to ask. We did that in Dodd-Frank with 
respect to nationally chartered banks. If the Office of the Comptroller 
of the Currency in nationally chartered banks is not making sure 
consumers are being looked after, then we allow State attorneys 
general--not to write regulations or their own law but to enforce 
Federal standards and laws. I wanted to make sure that in the event 
that someday we had an EPA that frankly wouldn't enforce a new version 
of the substance control act, then States could enforce it for them.
  Chemical manufacturers and consumers alike deserve legal clarity, a 
timely review process, and the ability to trust that products people 
use every day are safe. I might add that when Senator Udall and Senator 
Vitter started to introduce this legislation and started to gather 
cosponsors--I don't mean to be presumptuous, but my guess is the 
Presiding Officer probably ended up as a cosponsor. At the end of the 
day, we had 30 Democrats and 30 Republicans. The idea was to add a 
Democrat, add a Republican, add a Democrat, add a Republican--a little 
bit of a look at how a bill is made or should be made. It is almost a 
textbook example of how legislation could be formed or should be 
formed, even on a difficult and contentious issue like the one I am 
talking about today.
  I was involved at the very beginning in the initial efforts to 
rewrite the Toxic Substance Control Act. I was involved with David 
Vitter and Tom Udall and also the chairman of the committee, Jim 
Inhofe. But I got to a point where I said to the coauthors of the 
legislation--they were looking for cosponsors, and I said: I will be 
willing to cosponsor your version of the rewriting of the Toxic 
Substance Control Act, but there are 10 changes that I would like to 
consider making.
  They said: What are they?
  I said: Well, here they are.
  And I gave them some idea of what they were. They asked me to put 
them

[[Page 8178]]

in writing, so I put them in writing in a letter to Senators Vitter and 
Udall and said: These are the changes I would like to see made in the 
bill you have introduced. If you will make these changes or agree to 
these changes, I will cosponsor your bill, and not only will I 
cosponsor your bill, but so will 10 or 11 other Democrats. We all 
signed the letter. This was probably about a year and a half ago.
  The letter was more to Senator Vitter than Senator Udall; I think it 
went to both. But to his credit, Senator Vitter and his staff went 
through it piece by piece, proposal by proposal--all 10 of them. At the 
end of the day, they agreed essentially with all of them, and they said 
that they would incorporate all 10 of the proposals in the bill. They 
said: Now will you cosponsor the bill?
  And I said: Yes, I will. And so did the rest of us who signed the 
letter--all 10 of us.
  When I said that I would cosponsor the bill, I also said there were 
three areas that still needed some work. My passion for pushing for 
this legislation will be tempered somewhat by your willingness to also 
act on subsequent changes in the bill in these three areas. I will not 
go into those three areas, but I will say that later on, some of my 
colleagues--Senators Cory Booker, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Jeff 
Merkley, and Senator Ed Markey--sort of stepped up and said: We are 
interested in those three areas, and we want to see further changes 
made in the bill.
  With those changes, we added even more cosponsors, and finally we 
ended up with 60. We said: Let's take that bill to the Senate. It 
reported out of committee and eventually worked through the Senate. It 
was not easy, but we finally got it done. We went to conference with 
the House, and, lo and behold, we passed a conference report 
unanimously last night by unanimous consent, and nobody objected. 
Considering how controversial this bill has been for years, that is 
amazing.
  At a press conference we held today with the principal Democrats and 
Republicans in the Senate, one of the House Members came over. Senator 
Tom Udall talked about how he felt elated to be able to unanimously 
pass a contentious bill after all these years. He likened it to 
standing on a mountaintop. He is a mountain climber. In New Mexico they 
have some tall mountains, and he said it was like standing on a 
mountain top. He said: I feel elation when I climb to the top of a tall 
mountain and stand atop the mountain. And he said this morning at the 
press conference that he felt elation as well.
  Then, when I spoke after Senator Udall, I said that in Delaware we 
don't have tall mountains. Delaware is the lowest lying State in 
America. We really worry about climate change and sea levels rising. 
Besides that being some theory, it is something that we worry about. So 
the highest part of land in Delaware is a bridge. Every now and again, 
if I want to go up high and climb something, I can climb the bridge, 
but it is not really that high.
  The thing that gave me elation in Delaware when I was Governor--and 
before that the State treasurer and all--was when we all worked 
together. Delaware has a tradition; we call it the Delaware way. It is 
where Democrats and Republicans work together, set aside partisan 
differences, and just ask: What is the right thing to do?
  Delaware is a small State. We can get pretty much the key 
stakeholders in a room and work out a lot of our differences within a 
couple of hours. It is pretty amazing how it works sometimes.
  I share with my colleagues today an African proverb. The Presiding 
Officer has probably heard this before, and he has probably used this 
one before. It goes something like this: ``If you want to travel fast, 
go alone. If you want to travel far, go together.''
  Let me say that again. ``If you want to travel fast, go alone. If you 
want to travel far, go together.''
  That is especially true in the Senate. In order to get anything of 
any consequence done, you need 60 votes. We are at about 55 
Republicans, and roughly there are about 45 Democrats with maybe an 
Independent in there somewhere. So we have to figure out how to travel 
together.
  We have been traveling a long way over the last 4 years or so, but we 
finally got to our destination, and I think we finally came to a good 
outcome in terms of the policy we have adopted. For the first time, the 
legislation that has been agreed to by the House and Senate and will be 
sent to the President will require that every product used in consumer 
products will be assessed for safety.
  Let me say that again. Every chemical used in consumer products will 
be assessed for safety. At the same time, our legislation will offer 
businesses a predictable and manageable regulatory framework--not a 
whole bunch of different regulatory frameworks, but one--for chemicals 
that do not pose a safety hazard.
  As I said, we have been struggling and negotiating this bill in the 
Senate for a long time--maybe as much as a half dozen years. There has 
been a lot of give and take on both sides of the aisle to get to where 
we are last night and today. We are where we are today because both 
sides worked together to compromise on policies without compromising on 
our principles.
  I mentioned that Frank Lautenberg used to sit at one of these desks 
behind me, and so did Ted Kennedy. I will never forget going and having 
a lunch with him when I was fairly new in the Senate. I wasn't sure 
that we had the kind of interpersonal relationship that I wanted, and 
as the Presiding Officer knows, this place works a lot on 
relationships.
  I said to him: Maybe someday I can come to your office and just sit 
and talk with you for a while and have a cup of coffee.
  He said: Why don't you come to my hideaway, and we will have lunch 
together.
  I said: Really?
  He said: Yes.
  After about a week or two, we went to his hideaway, and we had lunch 
together. His hideaway was an amazing place. It was almost like a 
museum in terms of all the things about the Kennedy family and his 
brothers and his own life.
  Among the things we talked about that day was his ability to find 
compromise and consensus with one of our current colleagues, a guy 
named Mike Enzi--a wonderful guy named Mike Enzi who the Presiding 
Officer knows is one of two Senators from Wyoming, a former mayor of 
Gillette, an accountant--I think maybe a CPA. When I was presiding over 
the Senate years ago, I remember Mike Enzi coming to the floor of the 
Senate and speaking about the 80-20 rule and how the 80-20 rule allowed 
the folks in a committee he served on as the senior Republican called 
the HELP Committee, or the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee--Ted Kennedy was the senior Democrat on that committee. It 
was an incredibly productive committee. There were all kinds of 
bipartisan legislation coming out of it.
  Later on that day I asked Senator Enzi off the floor: How do you and 
Ted Kennedy manage to get so much done in the Senate Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pension Committee? How do you do that?
  He said: It is the 80-20 rule.
  I said: What's that?
  He said: Ted Kennedy and I agree on about 80 percent of this stuff, 
and we disagree on the other 20 percent. What we do is we focus on the 
80 percent where we agree, and we set aside the other 20 percent to 
another day and we will figure that out some other time.
  When I talked to Ted Kennedy about the same thing, he said: I am 
always willing to compromise on policy, process, but I just don't want 
to compromise on my principles. He and Mike Enzi managed to have an 
incredibly productive partnership on that committee and here in the 
Senate.
  Senator Kennedy had a similar relationship with Orrin Hatch, who now 
chairs the Finance Committee, as we know.
  But we are where we are today because both Democrats and Republicans 
have worked together to compromise on policy without having to 
compromise our principles. The final product is a testament to a robust 
and a

[[Page 8179]]

transparent committee process. I think it is a textbook example of how 
we ought to legislate around here. If we can get something that 
difficult, that complex, and that controversial behind us in an 
appropriate way and get support from environmental groups, business 
groups, Democrats and Republicans, maybe there are some other things we 
can get done, and God knows we need to.
  I am proud of the work we have done together to reach this historic 
agreement. In addition to thanking Senator Udall, Senator Vitter, and 
the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator 
Inhofe, I also want to say a special thank-you to the members of our 
staff. I think those of us who serve or are privileged to work here as 
Senators work hard, but on this issue--and some of us worked hard on 
this issue, but the folks who really worked hard on this issue are the 
members of our staff. I will not go through the names of all the folks 
who worked with this Senator and that Senator, but I just want to say 
to those of you who know who you are, thank you. You have done great 
work, and you have enabled us to do the people's work.
  I would say to a fellow who was a member of my staff for the last 
maybe 3 years and who worked day and night on this legislation--a 
fellow named Colin Peppard who now works for the Los Angeles County 
Metropolitan Transportation Authority out on the west coast--a special 
shout out to him and a special thank-you to him for all his efforts.
  Mr. President, I think that is pretty much it for me today. It looks 
as though the Senator from Minnesota is here and has a hungry look on 
his face. He hungers to share something with all of us.
  With that having been said, I will yield the floor to Senator Franken 
of Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. I thank my good friend from Delaware.


                     Nomination of Merrick Garland

  Mr. President, I rise today to address the nomination of Chief Judge 
Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court. Today marks 84 days since 
President Obama nominated Judge Garland to fill the vacant seat on the 
Supreme Court bench. In that time the consequences of permitting that 
vacancy to persist have become clear. The eight-member Court has now 
deadlocked four times, and in two cases where the Court found itself 
evenly divided and unable to reach consensus it punted, sending cases 
back to the lower courts.
  There is no denying that the Senate's refusal to do its job, to take 
up the business of filling that vacancy, means that in some cases the 
Court is not able to fulfill its core function, meaning in some cases 
the Court does not resolve circuit splits and cannot serve as the final 
arbiter of the law. That is not just my view, that is an opinion shared 
by one of the Court's current members, Associate Justice Anthony 
Kennedy. Testifying before the House Appropriations Committee back in 
2013, Justice Kennedy described what happens when the Court is short-
staffed. Although he is discussing the effect of recusals on the 
ability of the Court to do its job, his comments are no less relevant 
in the case of vacancies. This is what Justice Kennedy said: ``On our 
Court, if we recuse without absolutely finding it necessary to do so, 
then you might have a 4-4 Court, and everybody's time is wasted.''
  Let me say that again. ``Everybody's time is wasted.'' Well, my 
Republican colleagues don't seem to be bothered by wasting everybody's 
time.
  Mr. President, 116 days ago, less than an hour after the news of 
Justice Scalia's death, the majority leader proclaimed that the Senate 
would not consider a replacement until after the Presidential election 
and said that ``the American people should have a voice in the 
selection of their next Supreme Court Justice.''
  In the 116 days since the majority leader made that bold 
announcement, Republican Senator after Republican Senator has taken to 
the Senate floor to deliver variations on that theme. My good friend 
Senator Cornyn helpfully explained that Senate Republicans had made a 
decision to ``give the voters a voice on who makes the next lifetime 
appointment to the Supreme Court.'' He said, ``I want to be clear that 
the American people do deserve a voice here and we will make sure that 
they are heard.''
  We have been through this before. We agree. The American people 
should have a voice in this process. They did. They elected Barack 
Obama to be President of the United States. By my read of the 
Constitution--article II, section 1, to be exact--the President shall 
``hold his office during the term of 4 years''--a term which has not 
yet expired.
  It seems clear to me that in the text of our founding documents, our 
democracy was designed to ensure that its citizens have a voice in this 
process. President Ronald Reagan made this point quite eloquently when 
he presided over the swearing in of not just William Rehnquist as Chief 
Justice of the Supreme Court but also one Antonin Scalia as Associate 
Justice. President Reagan explained that ``the Founding Fathers 
recognized that the Constitution is the supreme and ultimate expression 
of the will of the American people.'' Of course, President Reagan was 
right. The Founding Fathers recognized that the very purpose of the 
Constitution was to embody the spirit and the voice of the American 
people.
  I find it preposterous when my Republican colleagues, who purport to 
revere the Constitution and the Framer's original intent, insist that 
the only way to guarantee that the people's voice is heard is to delay 
filling the vacancy, because, after all, the Founding Fathers did not 
just contemplate such a situation, they actually experienced it.
  When President John Adams--himself a Founding Father and a drafter of 
the Declaration of Independence--was presented with the opportunity to 
appoint a Supreme Court Justice, he himself was a lameduck President. 
The Chief Justice at the time, Oliver Ellsworth, resigned after the 
1800 Presidential election--an election that President Adams lost. 
Nevertheless, Adams set about the work of selecting a replacement. When 
he eventually nominated John Marshall in January of 1801, more than 2 
months after losing the election to a President of a different party--
and the country still did not know who that would be because Thomas 
Jefferson and Aaron Burr had tied, but they were not his political 
party. Despite an unresolved election and in the face of great 
uncertainty, Adams nominated Justice Marshall, and the Senate took up 
John Marshall's nomination and confirmed him to the post of Chief 
Justice on January 27, 1801, by voice vote.
  John Adams was by every definition of the term a lameduck President. 
The Senate could have refused to fill the vacancy. They could have left 
the Supreme Court short-staffed. Senators could have insisted that the 
seat not be filled until it was clear just exactly whom the American 
people had selected as their next President. But the Senate recognized 
that it had a constitutional obligation to confirm a replacement. That 
should come as no surprise because of the 32 Senators serving in the 
Sixth Congress, 5 of them had been delegates to the Constitutional 
Convention: Abraham Baldwin of Georgia; Jonathan Dayton of New Jersey; 
John Langdon of New Hampshire; Gouverneur Morris of New York, whose 
first name was Gouverneur, but he wasn't a Governor; his mother's 
maiden name was Gouverneur; and Charles Pinckney of South Carolina. All 
of them are real Founding Fathers. If anyone should have known what the 
Constitution required in this situation, it was they.
  Now, picture them milling about the floor of the Old Senate Chamber 
on January 27, 1801, talking amongst themselves and their colleagues 
and whipping votes. At the time, the Senate's practice was to consider 
nominations in an executive session with the doors closed. Only 
Senators and certain staff were allowed in the Chamber and the 
proceedings were intended to be secret, so the Congressional Record 
contains no debate on John Marshall's

[[Page 8180]]

nomination. We can only imagine what Senators said, but I suspect it 
went something like this:
  Well, John, Abraham, Gouverneur, I suppose we should vote now on the 
President's nomination to the Supreme Court.
  Why, yes, Jonathan, of course. I remember when we wrote into the 
Constitution that when a vacancy occurs, the President shall appoint a 
nominee to fill the vacancy and we Senators shall provided our advice 
and consent.
  Yes, John, I recall the day we wrote that. You were in a particularly 
good mood because your wife Betsy had arrived by carriage the night 
before from New Hampshire.
  Yes, Abraham, I recall that well. After all, it was only 13 years 
ago, and the next day we wrote the provisions about the Supreme Court. 
I remember very well how specific we were. The President appoints a 
nominee in the event of a vacancy and we in the Senate do our job by 
providing advice and consent. So by all means, let's vote.
  These men, these Founding Fathers set aside whatever reservations 
they may have had about the unique circumstances surrounding John 
Marshall's nomination and a lameduck President of a different party 
than the party that won the Presidential election. They allowed the 
Senate to hold a vote. These are the Founding Fathers who wrote the 
Constitution. As a consequence, John Marshall went on to serve as our 
Nation's fourth Chief Justice, authoring opinions that make up the 
foundation of constitutional law. It was obvious to those Founding 
Fathers in the Senate, as it should be to all of us serving here today, 
that the Supreme Court is too important, too central to our democracy 
to ignore.
  I urge my colleagues--particularly those motivated by a fidelity to 
the Framers' original intent--to end their obstruction and grant the 
President's nominee full and fair consideration.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I rise to speak on amendment No. 4251. I 
have filed the amendment; I have not yet requested it to be made 
pending. I would like to see this amendment move through. It seeks to 
remove the President's authority to deny troops their mandated pay 
raise.
  The issue of paying our troops should not be a partisan issue any 
longer. We have fought this battle for too many years on the Senate 
floor. This year I put forth a bipartisan solution with my colleague 
from Montana, Jon Tester, and with Senators Rubio, Portman, and 
Boozman. It is a long-term solution.
  Since 2004, the President has been required by law to give troops a 
pay raise matching the Employment Cost Index, also called the ECI, but 
when we mandated that the President raise troop pay with the ECI, we 
gave the ability for an exemption; that is, when the country is facing 
serious economic conditions or for matters of national security.
  Now, citing economic conditions, the President has used this 
exemption the past 3 years and he used it again this year--all while 
citing a growing economy. What happens is our troops are not getting 
the pay raise that Congress says they should, matching the ECI. When we 
are facing economic uncertainty, that is when our troops need it the 
most.
  The amendment is very clear cut. It removes the President's authority 
and future Presidents' authority to cite economic concerns when sending 
over a Presidential budget request without the mandated pay raise. It 
is clear that this exemption is being abused. For example, in 2016, in 
his State of the Union Address, President Obama said that ``anyone 
claiming that America's economy is in decline is peddling fiction.'' 
But just 1 month later, in his fiscal year 2017 budget request he sent 
to Congress, President Obama cited ``economic concerns affecting the 
general welfare'' and only asked for a 1.6-percent pay raise for our 
troops, despite the ECI being 2.1 percent.
  As we continue to debate this bill and call up amendments, I urge my 
colleagues to support amendment 4251. Again, we have good bipartisan 
support on it. This is a long-term solution. This is not just about the 
current President, this is about future Presidents as well and the 
problems we continue to face; that is, our troops have not seen a pay 
raise over 2 percent in the past 6 years. As our Nation continues to 
find itself threatened abroad, we rely on our troops now more than 
ever. They deserve better. It is time to act.
  I thank Senator Tester, Senator Rubio, Senator Portman, and Senator 
Boozman for their support.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of an 
amendment offered by the senior Senator from Alaska, Ms. Murkowski, to 
strike the changes to the basic allowance for housing, or BAH, that are 
proposed in section 604 of the Defense authorization bill. This 
amendment is very similar to one I filed this year as well as one I 
sponsored last year.
  Currently, each servicemember receives a housing stipend based on his 
or her rank, geographic location, and dependency status. Under section 
604, however, this part of the military compensation package would no 
longer be considered a cash allowance. Instead, servicemembers would be 
compensated on an actual cost basis similar to the system that was in 
place in the 1990s, which resulted in a burdensome and inefficient 
administrative approval process.
  Notably, the 2015 Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization 
Commission established by the fiscal year 2013 National Defense 
Authorization Act examined the issue of allowances as it assessed the 
military's compensation and retirement system. The Commission found 
that the current allowance system strikes an appropriate balance in 
providing compensation to military members and assistance for their 
living expenses. The Commission deliberately chose not to recommend any 
changes to the allowance system, and this view is shared by the 
Department of Defense. In fact, the Secretary of the Navy called me 
today to express to his concerns about this provision.
  In its Statement of Administration Policy, the administration notes 
that it strongly objects to section 604, which, in its words, ``would 
inappropriately penalize some servicemembers over others by linking 
their BAH payments to their status as members of dual-military 
couples''--in other words, members of our military who are married to 
other servicemembers. Under section 604, both members of a dual 
military couple would be provided a lesser compensation package than 
other members of equal grade, sending a message that their service is 
not as highly valued.
  The Statement Of Administration Policy went on to note that ``Section 
604 would disproportionately affect female servicemembers and those 
military families in which both military members have chosen to serve 
their country.'' Twenty percent of servicewomen are married to other 
servicemembers. By comparison, only 3.8 percent--in other words, less 
than 4 percent of Active-Duty men--are married to other servicemembers. 
Thus, women are five times more likely to be affected by this reduction 
in housing allowances than their male counterparts--five times more 
likely for the women servicemembers to be affected because they are 
more likely to be married to servicemembers.
  This proposed change would similarly penalize our junior 
servicemembers who are more likely to live with another servicemember 
as a roommate to help defray the cost-of-living expenses. As such, this 
provision could have a profound implication for both recruitment and 
retention of our all-volunteer force and discourage our best and our 
brightest from staying in the service.
  I do recognize that the Department's personnel costs are a budget 
concern, but finding savings that unfairly single out some military 
members is not the way to do it, particularly when one considers the 
growing role women servicemembers are playing and which I strongly 
support and admire.
  Last year I spearheaded a successful movement to remove a similar 
provision from the fiscal year 2016 NDAA. I

[[Page 8181]]

am disappointed to see that this proposal has resurfaced again this 
year. I am pleased to work with my colleague from Alaska Senator 
Murkowski to remove a provision that I believe is both unfair and 
harmful.
  I do recognize the very difficult task the Senate Armed Services 
Committee had in putting together this bill. I commend both the 
chairman, Senator McCain, and the ranking member, Senator Jack Reed, 
for their terrific work on so many issues. I do hope they will look 
again at this particular cut in the basic housing allowance and support 
our amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Tribute to Billy Lawless

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we all know the Senate of the United 
States is composed of two Senators from each State. Today I have news. 
My home State of Illinois just picked up a third senator.
  Last month, the Irish Prime Minister--Taoiseach--Enda Kenny, 
announced eight appointees to the Irish Senate. One of the appointees 
is my dear friend in Chicago, Billy Lawless.
  Billy is the first Irish citizen living in the United States to be 
appointed to the Irish Senate. This is truly historic. Today Billy 
takes a seat in the Irish Senate. Ireland will get a senator who will 
fight for the disenfranchised, the dispossessed, and those yearning to 
work hard for a better life.
  No one has been a stronger voice and advocate for the Irish diaspora 
and immigration reform than Billy Lawless of Chicago, IL. Prime 
Minister Kenny couldn't have made a better choice.
  For generations, sons and daughters of the Emerald Isle have landed 
on our shores in search of the American dream. Billy Lawless is no 
different. As a young boy, he grew up on a dairy farm in Galway, a city 
in western Ireland, delivering unpasteurized milk to local restaurants 
and hotels.
  As an adult, he made a name for himself as a prominent businessman in 
Galway. He ran several pubs, restaurants, and hotels. Life was good, 
but for years he had always had a dream of opening a restaurant in the 
United States. When his youngest daughter earned a full college 
scholarship in the United States, Billy took that as a sign from 
Heaven. He moved his family to America. After 48 years in Galway, he 
wanted to see if he could succeed in the United States and he 
personally could live the American dream.
  He first went to Boston and Philadelphia, but on December 31, 1997, 
New Year's Eve, a historic day, Billy Lawless arrived in Chicago and 
knew he had found a home. From Galway, that most Irish of Irish cities, 
to Chicago, the most Irish of American cities, it was a perfect 
transition.
  Within 6 months, Billy opened an establishment known as Irish Oak, 
just a couple blocks south of Wrigley Field. Today he owns four 
restaurants and a fifth one is about to open. All the Lawless 
restaurants are known for three things--great food, great fun, and 
great people.
  Simply put, the Lawless family is restaurant royalty in Chicago. The 
family business started with 10 employees. Now they have 300. Since 
arriving in Chicago nearly 20 years ago, Billy has brought new energy 
to the city--Irish energy--hard work, and a stubborn drive to succeed. 
With the great help of his great wife Anne and his four children--
Billy, Jr., Amy, John Paul, and Clodagh--Billy achieved the American 
dream.
  Billy could have said: I have achieved my American dream. Good luck 
with yours.
  That is not who he is. After all, Billy is Irish. He looks out for 
his friends and neighbors.
  The first bar Billy opened, the Irish Oak, became a favorite for 
Irish construction workers. Many of them were undocumented and asked 
for Billy's help in getting their papers in order. Billy never 
hesitated. He became their champion and a strong defender of Irish 
immigrants everywhere. When asked why he took such an interest in the 
issue, he said: ``That's what we Irish do for each other.'' But he 
didn't stop there. When he learned that those same problems were shared 
by others, Billy became an eloquent and forceful advocate for all 
immigrants.
  Billy Lawless gets it. He understands that protecting immigrants' 
rights is part of the strength of our immigrant Nation. I know he will 
continue to be an energetic and compassionate guardian of the Irish 
diaspora and all immigrants' rights from his seat in the Irish Senate.
  The United States and Ireland have long and proud histories, forged 
in the fires of a proud and rebellious spirit and united in friendship. 
Having Billy Lawless's unique and authentic voice in the Irish Senate 
will only strengthen our countries here and abroad. He represents the 
very best of the both the Irish and American spirit.
  It was only 2 years ago that I came to the Senate floor to 
congratulate Billy and his wife Anne on becoming citizens of the United 
States. They had waited a long time, and they had worked hard for it. I 
was proud to call them not just my friends but my fellow Americans. 
Today I am proud to call Billy Lawless my fellow Senator.
  Congratulations on a well-deserved honor.


                 Independence of our Federal Judiciary

  Mr. President, I rise to address an issue of serious constitutional 
gravity. I rise to address the latest in a long line of appalling and 
insulting remarks made by the Republican Party's presumptive 
Presidential nominee.
  Last week Donald Trump attacked the ethnicity of U.S. district court 
judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is presiding over a civil fraud lawsuit 
against Trump's so-called university.
  Mr. Trump referred to Judge Curiel's heritage in a lengthy tirade 
about the judge's ruling in the case. He also called Judge Curiel a 
``hater'' and ``a total disgrace,'' suggesting that the judge should 
recuse himself due to his ``negative'' rulings.
  When pressed on the issue, Mr. Trump doubled down. In an interview 
with the Wall Street Journal published last Thursday, Mr. Trump stated 
that Judge Curiel had ``an absolute conflict'' in presiding over the 
lawsuit because the judge is of ``Mexican heritage.''
  Mr. Trump went on to explain that the judge's ethnicity presents an 
``inherent conflict of interest'' because of Mr. Trump's campaign 
pledge to build a wall on the U.S. border with Mexico.
  Let me be clear. Mr. Trump's attacks on Judge Curiel have been 
characterized--even by Republican Senators and Congressmen--as racist, 
inappropriate, and completely unfounded.
  Judge Curiel is an American. He was born in East Chicago, IN, just 
steps away from the border with my State. His parents had emigrated 
from Mexico to the United States.
  He has a distinguished record. After attending law school at Indiana 
University, Judge Curiel practiced law in Indiana and California. In 
1989, he joined the U.S. Attorney's office in the Southern District of 
California.
  As a Federal prosecutor, Judge Curiel served in the Narcotics 
Enforcement Division and worked to bring down drug cartels. After 
prosecuting a major cartel, he received a death threat and was forced 
to live under guard for months.
  In 2007, he was appointed by a Republican Governor in California to 
serve as a State judge. President Obama later nominated Judge Curiel to 
the Federal bench. The Senate confirmed his nomination by a unanimous 
vote on September 22, 2012.
  Judge Curiel is well respected in the legal community. A former 
colleague recently said: ``His integrity is beyond reproach.'' And a 
California attorney who led the screening committee that reviewed Judge 
Curiel in 2011 said:

       He was very highly recommended. No one could say a bad 
     thing about him.

  Despite these accomplishments, Donald Trump views Judge Curiel as 
incapable of serving as an impartial jurist in this case involving 
Trump University due to the judge's ethnicity. Mr. Trump believes the 
lawsuit that Judge Curiel is presiding over should have been dismissed 
long ago. Maybe

[[Page 8182]]

Mr. Trump should take a closer look at reality.
  Multiple lawsuits have been filed against Mr. Trump's so-called 
university, and in one of the two lawsuits that Judge Curiel is 
presiding over, former students allege that Mr. Trump and Trump 
University defrauded them by making misrepresentations about the 
education they would receive.
  The plaintiffs provided evidence to support their claims and, as a 
result, Judge Curiel denied a motion from Mr. Trump to grant summary 
judgment in his favor, which would have avoided a trial. Nothing in 
this ruling suggests a lack of impartiality. Instead, Judge Curiel's 
rulings indicate that a factual dispute exists in the case and the 
plaintiffs deserve their day in court.
  Unfortunately, reality and the facts don't seem to matter to Mr. 
Trump. Instead of acknowledging the inappropriateness of his attacks on 
Judge Curiel's character and heritage, he has doubled down on them. Mr. 
Trump apparently believes that after he bullies and demeans a group of 
people, he should never have to face a member of that community in a 
courtroom.
  One of Mr. Trump's most reprehensible statements--and there are 
many--calls for a total and complete ban on Muslim immigrants coming to 
the United States of America. In an interview that aired on ``Face the 
Nation'' on Sunday, Mr. Trump was asked:

       If it were a Muslim judge, would you also feel like they 
     wouldn't be able to treat you fairly because of that policy 
     of yours?

  He responded:

       It's possible, yes. Yeah. That would be possible, 
     absolutely.

  Where does Mr. Trump's twisted logic end? Does his crude attack on a 
disabled reporter present a conflict of interest for a judge with a 
disability who presides over a case against him? Do his disparaging 
remarks about women disqualify female judges from ruling on lawsuits 
filed against his failed business ventures?
  Mr. Trump's assertions are not only bigoted, they also endanger the 
independence of the Federal judiciary as he aspires to the highest 
office in the land. Despite those concerns, Senate Republicans are 
keeping 89 Federal judicial seats vacant, including an empty seat on 
the U.S. Supreme Court, in the hopes that Donald Trump will be able to 
fill those vacancies.
  After Mr. Trump's racist diatribes, I would like to ask my colleagues 
how they can possibly trust Mr. Trump to appoint judges to the Federal 
bench. Are they comfortable with a potential President who apparently 
believes that the only qualified candidates for Federal judgeships are 
those who possess racial, religious, or other characteristics that he 
has not yet disparaged?
  Trusting Donald Trump to fill judgeships in our Nation's Federal 
courtrooms is a risky and constitutionally dangerous bet. Placing that 
trust in Trump would threaten grave harm to our system of justice and 
to our rule of law.
  I thought--or had hoped--that we had moved past the dark time in our 
Nation's history when defendants believed it was appropriate to try to 
remove judges from a lawsuit on the basis of race. It was just over 40 
years ago that an African-American Federal judge named A. Leon 
Higginbotham, Jr. presided over a class action lawsuit involving civil 
rights claims.
  The defendants in the lawsuit filed motions to disqualify Judge 
Higginbotham from the case based on his race. In his opinion denying 
their motions, Judge Higginbotham wrote the following:

       It would be a tragic day for the nation and the judiciary 
     if a myopic vision of the judge's role should prevail, a 
     vision that required judges to refrain from participating in 
     their churches, in their non-political community affairs, in 
     their universities. So long as Jewish judges preside over 
     matters where Jewish and Gentile litigants disagree; so long 
     as Protestant judges preside over matters where Protestant 
     and Catholic litigants disagree; so long as White judges 
     preside over matters where White and Black litigants 
     disagree, I will preside over matters where Black and White 
     litigants disagree.

  In light of Mr. Trump's reprehensible remarks, Judge Higginbotham's 
words have taken on a renewed resonance. If Mr. Trump's myopic vision 
for the Federal judiciary prevails, it will indeed be a tragic day for 
the Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ISAKSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if the Senator from Georgia would yield for 
me to make a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. ISAKSON. I yield.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized following the remarks of the Senator from Georgia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Georgia
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
distinguished Senator from Alaska, Ms. Murkowski, be allowed to follow 
the Senator from Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Veterans First Act

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, last week, the Attorney General of the 
United States sent a letter to Kevin McCarthy, the majority leader of 
the House, to inform Mr. McCarthy and all of us, that she would not 
defend the administration on the constitutional challenge to the firing 
of Sharon Helman, the director of the Arizona hospital of the Veterans' 
Administration.
  The firing took place because Ms. Helman had manipulated the books 
and overseen the manipulation of appointments to the point where as 
many as 40 veterans waiting in line to get their first appointment died 
before they were ever seen by the VA. She was convicted by a court of 
law for taking illegal gratuities in her position as director of the 
hospital.
  Ms. Helman filed a constitutional challenge as to whether we had the 
ability in the administration to fire her constitutionally, and Loretta 
Lynch has said she is not going to defend the United States or the law 
we passed, called the Veterans Accountability and Choice Act, which 
calls for the firing of employees by the Secretary of the Veterans' 
Administration for cause.
  Today, in Phoenix, AZ, it was announced that the Veterans' 
Administration is firing three more employees of the Veterans' 
Administration hospital. Yet, in the shadow of that, Loretta Lynch is 
telling America she will not defend the country on the carrying out of 
the laws we pass in this country, in this body, and that the President 
of the United States has signed.
  There is a solution to this problem, Mr. President. It is called the 
Veterans First Act, which was written originally by 19 members of the 
Senate--all members of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. It has been 
signed and cosponsored by 43 other Members of the Senate and once and 
for all ends the hide-and-go-seek that takes place at the Veterans' 
Administration. It takes the Veterans' Administration out from under 
the Merit Systems Protection Board for all senior executive leadership. 
In other words, the 434 senior executives in the Veterans' 
Administration now protected by the Merit Systems Protection Board no 
longer would be protected by that Board but instead would be subject to 
the Secretary's firing or the Secretary's hiring. Any appeal for 
actions taken on behalf of the Secretary will be to the Secretary, not 
to the Merit Systems Protection Board.
  The American people and the brave veterans who have fought and 
sacrificed for this country deserve the right to know that if they are 
injured by the Veterans' Administration or if the Veterans' 
Administration is not carrying out what it is supposed to do for them, 
we will take action, and we will be effective.
  I resent the fact that the Attorney General of the United States has 
chosen not to defend a constitutional challenge to our authority, which 
this Congress passed and our President signed to give that authority to 
Secretary Bob McDonald and whoever would follow him as Secretary of the 
VA.
  But that is not the only thing in the Veterans First Act. For the 
first time

[[Page 8183]]

ever, we are going to give caregiver benefits to Vietnam-era veterans--
22,500 handicapped veterans--who today can't get the same benefits that 
post-9/11 vets can get. That is wrong, and we are taking care of that.
  We are dealing with the opioid problem that started at the Tomah 
hospital in Wisconsin. We are correcting that and putting in good 
standards for the use of opioids and the prescription of opioids and 
therapies to get people off opioids.
  We are cleaning up the mental health access situation to improve 
mental health access for all our veterans. We are giving the type of 
discipline to the leaders of the Veterans' Administration to see to it 
that our hospitals are run like they should be, our veterans get the 
services they deserve, and we give to our veterans who return home 
after fighting for us the best quality health care and the most 
responsive health care system we can possibly provide.
  I urge the Presiding Officer and the other Members of the Senate to 
join with me when our bill comes to the floor and to pass the Veterans 
First Act. It brings about real accountability in the Veterans' 
Administration, real choice for our veterans, and real care for our 
Vietnam veterans. It addresses the opioid problem and once and for all 
provides for a comprehensive reform for the Veterans' Administration, 
which hasn't taken place in decades and decades.
  I commend the members of the Veterans' Affairs Committee for their 
leadership. I thank the Presiding Officer for the time, and I yield to 
the distinguished Senator from Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
Georgia.


                           Amendment No. 4549

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Senator McCain, the chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee, believes that $602 billion is not enough for the 
Department of Defense. Rather than reject unnecessary spending for 
weapons and other programs the Pentagon says it does not want or need, 
the Senator from Arizona not only says we should fund them, he also 
proposes to spend another $18 billion on defense.
  I will leave it to others to defend or contest the assumptions on 
which Senator McCain's amendment is based. But I do want to speak 
briefly in support of the second degree amendment offered by the 
ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Reed of Rhode 
Island.
  Because if there is one thing we have learned over and over, it is 
that protecting U.S. national security is not only about a strong 
military that can respond when all other options fail. It is also about 
homeland security, including border control and maintaining critical 
infrastructure. It is about law enforcement within the United States. 
It is about cyber security. It is about educating the next generation 
of Americans and creating jobs that lead to advancements in science and 
technology. And it is about strengthening the capabilities of foreign 
partners and acting as a leader in international diplomatic efforts to 
prevent and respond to threats to global security.
  The fiscal year 2017 budget allocation for the Department of State 
and foreign operations is $591 million below fiscal year 2016. That, 
coupled with the fact that the President's budget underfunds programs 
for refugees and other victims of disasters by $1 billion, presents us 
with an untenable budgetary situation. The amendment offered by the 
Senator from Rhode Island would help to alleviate this shortfall.
  While there are many foreign crises, Senator Reed's amendment focuses 
on one area where the situation is particularly dire. It authorizes 
$1.9 billion to support the Department of State and U.S. Agency for 
International Development to implement their portions of the Integrated 
Campaign Plan to Counter ISIL. The funds would also support embassy 
security, as well as additional assistance for Israel, and for Jordan 
and Lebanon which have been severely impacted by the influx of hundreds 
of thousands of Syrian refugees.
  This is directly related to U.S. security interests in the Middle 
East at a time when the stability of the entire region is under threat.
  In a June 2 piece in Time Magazine, Retired GEN James Conway, former 
Commandant of the Marine Corps, and Retired ADM James M. Loy, former 
Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, wrote that:

       . . . the security challenges our nation faces today are 
     not the same as when we began our service during the Cold 
     War. . . . Twenty-first century problems require fine 
     scalpels, and the military is a broad sword. We can start by 
     better resourcing and strengthening our own institutions. The 
     State Department, the Peace Corps and USAID are the front 
     lines of keeping our country safe, but they are underfunded 
     and undermanned.

  Mr. President, we should also remember that the Balanced Budget Act 
is based on parity. The spending caps we put in place have consequences 
for both the defense and nondefense sides of the ledger. Yet the 
Senator from Arizona's one dimensional approach ignores this bipartisan 
compromise. His amendment ignores the essential roles that development 
and diplomacy play in national security. It ignores the many domestic 
components to a strong defense, like a well-trained workforce and 
reliable infrastructure, like energy independence, like health systems 
that have the resources to protect the public from infectious diseases, 
contaminated drinking water, and unsafe food.
  If you ask the American people whether these investments are as 
important as more fighter planes and warships, they would emphatically 
answer ``yes''. And that is why the very name of the Balanced Budget 
Act includes the word ``balanced''.
  The amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island should be passed 
overwhelmingly.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the June 2 article I referred to by General Conway and Admiral Loy.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   Former Military Leaders: 3 Lessons for Our Next Commander-in-Chief

                    (James Conway and James M. Loy,
                             June 2, 2016)


                   Military alone cannot keep us safe

       As Hillary Clinton makes a national security speech 
     Thursday and with Trump's recent major foreign policy speech, 
     it's important to remember that the military alone cannot 
     keep us safe. As the former commandants of the Marine Corps 
     and the Coast Guard, we believe our next Commander-in-Chief 
     will also need the civilian tools in our arsenal to keep our 
     nation strong and secure.
       For centuries, the blessing of two large oceans on our 
     flanks acted as geographical barriers. But in the modern era, 
     technology has made the world smaller and increasingly 
     interconnected. The recent attacks in Brussels, Paris and San 
     Bernardino, Calif., remind us that global threats do not 
     respect borders, and oceans are not enough to preserve our 
     peace and prosperity.
       The security challenges our nation faces today are not the 
     same as when we began our service during the Cold War. 
     National security challenges have become more resistant to 
     bullets. Ebola, the Zika virus, the influx of undocumented 
     children from Latin states, and even the rise of ISIS cannot 
     be resolved only with the force of arms.
       If there was one immutable lesson of the Sept. 11 attacks, 
     it is that instability in remote corners of the world can 
     pose a direct threat to our way of life. The rise of ISIS is 
     only a recent example that underscores that reality.
       Military force will continue to be a necessary deterrent 
     for the exercise of American power, but it cannot be the only 
     option. To preserve our flag and freedom, there are three 
     areas where America must do better.
       1. We must strengthen not only our soldiers, sailors, 
     Marines, Coast Guard, and airmen but also our diplomats and 
     development experts who are critical to our national 
     security.
       Fighting terrorism means more than bombing the Middle East 
     from the air. It means supporting weak or fragile states, 
     increasing foreign military training and assistance, and 
     devoting more resources to fight weapons proliferation. These 
     are battles best fought at the local level with knowledge of 
     cultures, economics and history.
       2. We must help create economic opportunities around the 
     world--particularly those where there are security concerns.
       Think of America's engagement with Germany, Japan and South 
     Korea in the postwar years. They are now our fourth, fifth, 
     and sixth largest trading partners, respectively. Helping 
     promote rule of law and economic development strengthens our 
     economy here at home.

[[Page 8184]]


       3. We must strengthen the humanitarian values that 
     undergird American global leadership.
       U.S. foreign assistance has helped cut extreme poverty in 
     half since 1990. It has increased life expectancy in the 
     developing world by 33%, afforded two billion people access 
     to clean water, and the number of children in primary school 
     has tripled over the last 25 years.
       Pandemics and diseases like Ebola and the Zika virus are 
     more easily defeated in the countries where they originate 
     when those countries have strong health care systems, an 
     educated population and the economic means to combat the 
     virus. We can help build those institutions. To those 
     concerned about the cost of assistance to the developing 
     world, we would submit to you that economic development is 
     cheaper than sending in the military.
       Twenty-first century problems require fine scalpels, and 
     the military is a broad sword. We can start by better 
     resourcing and strengthening our own institutions. The State 
     Department, the Peace Corps and USAID are the front lines of 
     keeping our country safe, but they are underfunded and 
     undermanned.
       Facing the largest global displacement of people since 
     World War II, we have much more work to do. If we are not 
     helping to support and build up allies and friends, then we 
     are reducing our prospects for success and ceding immense 
     benefits for our own national security.
       General James Mattis got it right when he said: ``If you 
     don't fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy 
     more ammunition.''
       Keeping all the tools of American national security strong 
     will help save lives and promote global stability and 
     prosperity. Regardless of who is elected in November, a 
     candidate who understands these challenges, and acts 
     accordingly, will be in America's best interests.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the distinguished senior Senator from 
Alaska on the floor, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an 
amendment that I have filed to the National Defense Authorization Act. 
This is amendment No. 4222, and it addresses an issue of great interest 
to military families not only in my State, where we are proud to host a 
strong contingent of military that defend our Nation, but this is an 
issue that really stretches across the country. What we propose in 
amendment No. 4222 is to strike section 604 of the NDAA, which 
represents a paradigm shift in the way the basic allowance for housing 
is paid to our Active-Duty members.
  The Department of Defense and our military families have long 
believed that BAH is part of a total compensation. Effectively, it is 
part of your paycheck. It is part of what you earn. It is something 
that you can count on based on where you are posted, what your rank is, 
and whether you have any dependents. We have seen the BAH be subject to 
arbitrary and somewhat unfair reductions in recent years. It has 
unfortunately become the bill payer for other priorities.
  BAH is regarded by the Defense Department as a component of a 
servicemember's total compensation. It is a compensation program. 
Section 604 turns the BAH into a reimbursement program. So instead of 
having BAH in your bank account to spend on living expenses as you deem 
fit, Section 604 essentially requires servicemembers to turn their 
receipts in to an accounting office and basically plead your 
entitlement to that reimbursement for the cost of your housing as well 
as utilities. I suppose alternatively you could take your entitlement 
and accept the risk that some audit or verification process will 
require you to pay something back, perhaps a lot back. Section 604 does 
not explain how this whole verification process will work.
  Believe me, when I had an opportunity to visit with military spouses 
at Fort Wainwright just last week about this, they asked me: How does 
this reimbursement work? How do I get these utilities statements in for 
reimbursement? Already there are not enough people to process the basic 
paperwork that goes on for reimbursement of other expenses like 
permanent change of station moves. Tell me how this is going to be a 
better system.
  Our military families are very familiar with deep bureaucracy and 
endure a fair amount of hassle to get what they are already entitled 
to.
  I heard loud and clear from these military spouses the concerns they 
had about a proposal. They are looking at this as a one-size-fits-all 
solution; perhaps it is not a well-formed solution and it could have 
extreme consequences for those who serve in highly rural places, like 
in Alaska.
  The BAH doesn't pay only for housing, it pays for the utilities. BAH 
pays for lights and heat, but keep in mind what it means to be in a 
very remote, very rural place. In places like Fairbanks, you are 
limited in terms of your options for energy, for power. Your costs are 
high. You could be looking at a home heating fuel bill on a monthly 
basis that could actually exceed the cost of your mortgage. Think about 
what that means. You may be in the enviable position of having found a 
home in a community that you think is affordable. The monthly rent is 
affordable, the mortgage might be affordable, but if it is an older 
house, if it is not fully weatherized, if you are on home heating fuel, 
you may be looking at a situation where you are paying more in 
utilities than for the cost of your housing.
  Another cost you might use your BAH to pay is snow removal. It is not 
an option to not have your snow removed, and if your spouse is 
deployed, you need a way to get out of a long driveway. Who is going to 
be paying for the snow removal? Oftentimes, BAH pays to pump out the 
septic system, which has to be done on a somewhat quarterly basis 
because there are so many homes that are not on water and sewer. By the 
way, when we talk about water, is the cost of hauling water recoverable 
under this new reimbursement program? When you are not on a water 
system, you have to get your water from somewhere. Some military 
families at Fort Wainwright are paying to have water hauled to their 
homes either by a truck or they go out to the community tap to fill up 
their tank, but there is a cost associated with that. These spouses are 
asking me: How is that going to be accommodated under the new BAH plan? 
Will this be considered part of these allowable reimbursements?
  This is all very troubling to me. It was certainly very troubling to 
the military families I spent time with. It is not like our military 
families don't have enough to worry about.
  One military spouse told me of the situation in her family. She is a 
licensed attorney in another State. She hasn't been able to get waived 
in to practice in the State of Alaska. Her husband is an E7 soldier and 
has been in for 19 years, so effectively two professionals. They have 
three children. She says she spends about $1,500 a month for food, 
formula, and diapers for the three small children. She pays $38,000 a 
year for childcare. Childcare in and around the Fort Wainwright area is 
very expensive, and she is not able to get reimbursement for childcare 
because she is not working. She is trying to get a job. But recognizing 
that they have all these other costs on top of it all, this military 
spouse--two professionals in the household, three children--tells me 
her family is WIC eligible.
  The stories I hear about our military families who are accessing our 
community food banks--our military families are worried. They are 
worried about what is happening at home, the financial issues they are 
faced with.
  This was one concern I heard specifically: If this is a reimbursement 
system and I have to submit receipts for expenses--expenses that may 
exceed the cost of housing, exceed the cost of a mortgage, and it takes 
a long while to get this reimbursement--what happens if I can't pay my 
bills on time? My job requires a security clearance? And that security 
clearance requires that your credit record be absolutely impeccable. 
How is all this going to work?
  There is so much stress, so much anxiety that I heard from these 
spouses as we were discussing these issues.
  When we think about what our military families are worried about, 
they are focused on the stress that comes with force structure 
reductions, frequent PCS moves, needing to understand the latest and 
greatest TRICARE

[[Page 8185]]

complexity, figuring out whether the old retirement paradigm or the new 
retirement paradigm is better. And then they have this--yet another 
layer of complexity with section 604 that just adds to the stress and 
adds to the anxiety.
  We have to be honest with one another. We have to be honest with our 
military families. The bill before us does not afford those who serve a 
pay increase that is commensurate with the value of their service. 
Thankfully, we are working on a fix, and I greatly appreciate the 
leadership of Senator McCain and his willingness to work with so many 
of us on these issues that are a concern to our families.
  When we look at what is going on now with BAH, I think we are messing 
with a very significant component of total compensation. That is simply 
not an appropriate way to thank families who have already suffered 
through multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, and now they have 
to contend with a host of uncertainties created by the rise of ISIL, 
the tensions on the Korean Peninsula, a resurgent Russia, and an 
ambitious China. This is not right for our military families.
  The Pentagon has issued a Statement of Administration Policy. They 
are quite clear about where they are on this. They believe section 604 
is damaging to the force, and that is why they oppose section 604. It 
is burdensome to move from a compensation approach to a reimbursement 
approach. It is inefficient. It appears to completely eliminate the BAH 
increment presently paid to families with children. It penalizes dual 
military couples. It disproportionately impacts female servicemembers. 
Think about it. About 20 percent of women on Active Duty are in a dual 
military marriage, compared to about 3.8 percent of Active-Duty men. So 
women on Active Duty are effectively taking a harder hit. And if we 
think this is not going to have an impact on recruitment and 
retention--I think we are going to be looking at some second-order 
consequences with respect to that and also as it relates to 
administration of the GI bill education benefit.
  I mentioned the effective penalty on dual military couples. I know a 
dual-career military couple. I am very pleased to know that their 
military career has taken them to some pretty good places and the 
better news is that they have moved together. One spouse has been 
selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel 2 years below the zone, 
which is a very big deal. This week, his wife learned that she, too, 
has been selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel 1 year below the 
zone. So we can see that both of these individuals are very high 
performers, really rock stars when it comes to a competitive promotion 
environment. They are doing great, but they are looking at the impact 
section 604 will have on their specific situation as a dual military 
couple. They estimate that if their next assignment is here in the 
lower 48, they will lose about $20,000 from their compensation. If we 
are fortunate that they should both get assigned to Alaska on the next 
rotation, that hit to them will rise to $29,000--an almost $30,000 
reduction in total compensation from what they as a military couple 
would receive under the current system. That is significant. They are 
exactly the kinds of people the private sector wants to recruit but our 
military wants to retain, and I am not the only person who appreciates 
this fact.
  When I was in Fort Wainwright, one dual military spouse said: Who I 
am married to should not affect my BAH entitlement. That summed it up 
in a pretty neat and tidy way.
  Over this past week since I have been back here, I have heard from 
senior military leaders and senior enlisted advisers to those leaders, 
all of one voice. They are saying that this brings down the morale in 
the volunteer force. I will relay to my colleagues the comments from 
one of the commanders in Fort Wainwright when I was there last week. He 
had been sitting in the back of the room listening to all of the 
military spouses weigh in and voice their concerns and their anxiety 
about what was going on. He said to me: This is a clear reminder of how 
morale affects the overall mission. I have been on assignment. I have 
been deployed to Afghanistan. I have broken down doors. I have been on 
patrol looking for IEDs.
  When you are on these missions, your head has to be 100 percent in 
the game. You can't be thinking about what is happening at home. You 
cannot be thinking about whether or not there are financial struggles 
that your spouse is dealing with. You cannot be distracted from where 
you are in the here and now. We are not just talking about ``quality of 
life'' issues; we are talking about ``matter of life and death'' 
issues.
  He said: If my head is not 100 percent in the game, then somebody's 
life potentially is on the line.
  It was a clear reminder to me of how morale affects the mission and 
how we need to ensure that our men and women whom we have tasked to 
take on the most difficult of tasks are able to focus on where they are 
right then. And making sure all is well at home is a responsibility we 
also have.
  There has been a lot of discussion about the BAH over the years. Some 
of us think that it is in need of reform or that perhaps right-sizing 
the BAH will mean more money for readiness and modernization. I 
certainly get that argument. I may not agree with all of that, but I do 
know there are some very hard choices that have to be made in a 
difficult budget environment. I respect the work the chairman has done, 
along with the ranking member, in trying to deal with all of that. But 
I do feel very certain about one thing: Those who believe that BAH 
should be reformed need to make that case openly and directly and 
transparently to our military families. I think putting a game-changing 
provision like section 604 in the NDAA without that consultation misses 
the mark.
  The changes we are considering in BAH would not be effective until 
2018. We have some time here, and we can get this right. My amendment, 
which is a bipartisan amendment, simply says: Take a timeout. Let's 
take a step back.
  To those who think the BAH is in need of reform, make the case to 
military families if you choose, but let's not rush this through. This 
is not what we should be doing.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
letters from the Military Officers Association of America as well as 
the Air Force Sergeants Association in support of my amendment.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     Military Officers Association


                                                   of America,

                                                     May 27, 2016.
     Hon. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK),
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Murkowski: I am writing to thank you for your 
     continued strong support for our men and women in uniform and 
     their families, as most recently demonstrated by your 
     introduction of amendment #4222, which would remove Sec. 604 
     from S. 2943, the Senate's FY17 defense policy legislation.
       Section 604 aims to recoup more than $200 million annually 
     from the Regular Military Compensation (RMA), earned by 
     servicemembers through reductions to the Basic Allowance for 
     Housing (BAH), a main component of RMA of which they are 
     entitled to under law. These reductions would begin in 
     January 2018 for new entrants into military service and after 
     the next Permanent Change of Station (PCS), for those already 
     serving.
       The reductions to BAH, as called for in 604, undoes the 
     diligent work done by Congress over the past 15 years to 
     rectify the out of pocket housing costs long borne by 
     servicemembers and clearly sends the wrong message to them 
     and their families--that their service and sacrifice is not 
     important.
       At a time when we have asked servicemembers to contribute 
     more to their retirement savings, more to their housing, and 
     possibly more to their healthcare, this proposal is wrongly 
     conceived, unfair, and would do harm to the retention of our 
     currently serving men and women and their families.
       The Military Officers Association of America (MOAA) 
     strongly supports amendment #4222 to remove Sec. 604 and 
     urges other members of the Senate to support the amendment as 
     well.
       Thank you for your leadership and for your continued strong 
     support for our men and women in uniform and their families.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Dana T. Atkins.

[[Page 8186]]

     
                                  ____
                              Air Force Sergeants Association,

                                       Suitland, MD, June 1, 2016.
     Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington DC.
       Dear Senator Murkowski: on behalf of the 100,000 members of 
     the Air Force Sergeants Association I want to thank you for 
     introducing amendment #4222 to S. 2943. Removing Sec. 604 
     from the Senate's FY17 NDAA, as articulated in your 
     amendment, is absolutely the right call!
       To propose BAH reductions while servicemembers are already 
     concurrently contributing more to their retirement and 
     potentially to their healthcare clearly sends the wrong 
     message. Keeping in mind that vast numbers of military 
     families funnel their children into similar service, 
     retention of those now serving in uniform as well as 
     recruitment of future talent both stand to suffer.
       AFSA strongly supports amendment #4222 to remove Sec. 604 
     from S.2943 and urges other members of the Senate to also 
     support this amendment.
           Respectfully,
                                                  Robert L. Frank,
                                          Chief Executive Officer.

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield the floor to my colleague from 
North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Alaska. I 
appreciate that.
  I rise today to speak in support of the NDAA, the National Defense 
Authorization Act, which we are currently working on. The NDAA is 
clearly one of the most important pieces of legislation we take up in 
Congress because it authorizes vital programs designed to keep our 
Nation secure and our people safe.
  We have worked very hard to make sure the bill upholds the nuclear 
missions at our missile bases, as well as unmanned aerial systems--the 
UAS missions--that have emerged as a vigorous part of our Nation's 
defense.
  I commend the chairman and the ranking member for their good work in 
bringing this bill to the floor. It is a massive undertaking. In 
particular, I thank them for their support on some important 
priorities.
  This bill fully authorizes programs to sustain our strategic forces, 
including plans to upgrade the Minuteman III ICBM, the venerable B-52 
bomber, and our nuclear cruise missiles. The bill also fully authorizes 
the Global Hawk program, which is proving its worth every day and 
demonstrates the value of unmanned aircraft in performing intelligence, 
surveillance, and reconnaissance missions.
  The Appropriations Committee, on which I serve, approved the National 
Defense Appropriations Act last month, putting in place the funding to 
support our armed services. As soon as we pass the authorization bill 
that is now before the full Senate, I understand we will work to bring 
its companion bill, the appropriations bill, to the floor for a vote as 
well. Both are vital for our armed services.
  Together, these two bills--the National Defense Authorization Act and 
the National Defense Appropriations Act--will provide our armed 
services with both the blueprint and the funding they need to defend 
our Nation and the American people.
  As I have said, I have filed several amendments that I believe will 
strengthen the bill and our national security, and I wish to take a 
minute to talk about them now.
  First, I have filed a measure that requires the Air Force to procure, 
in a timely manner, Black Hawk helicopters to replace the Vietnam-era 
Huey helicopters that currently provide security to our 
intercontinental ballistic missile fields. These fields are located 
near Minot Air Force Base in my home State of North Dakota, as well as 
at missile bases in Wyoming and the State of Montana.
  The Air Force uses helicopters to provide security for missiles that 
are in transit, as well as to move security forces quickly to any 
missile field site that could come under any kind of threat.
  I love the old Huey helicopters. They are great. I have flown in them 
for many years, on many occasions, and it is certainly an iconic 
aircraft and one that has served our Nation's military very well 
through the Vietnam era and through today. But the reality is that it 
is no longer able to do the job that we need done.
  I spent some time with pilots at Minot Air Force Base earlier this 
year and heard about the challenges they face. For example, the front 
panel of the Huey sometimes will not light up. Remember, these are 
aircraft that were manufactured in 1969. The pilots flying these 
aircraft are a lot younger than the helicopters they are flying, but 
they do a remarkable job. The mechanics do an amazing job in keeping 
them going.
  For example, sometimes the front panel of the Huey will not light up. 
When they are flying at night, they stick a portable LED light on the 
dash so they can see their gauges. Think about that. We have amazing 
young men and women in the military flying these helicopters that are 
much older than they are--helicopters from 1969. Some of the gauges 
don't have lights on them, so they put LED lights on as a makeshift way 
to see the gauges in the dark when they are flying to the missile 
fields performing their mission. If they hit some rough weather, guess 
what happens. The jostling knocks the LED lights off the control panel, 
and now they are in the dark. They can't even see their gauges.
  Think about being out there flying helicopters on a military mission, 
and it is dark. You may be in rough weather, and you can't see your 
gauges. Obviously, that doesn't get the job done. That is not something 
that is acceptable for our men and women in uniform.
  The Air Force acknowledges this, and they are working on getting an 
upgraded helicopter. To their credit, the Air Force wanted to move this 
as fast as possible, but under the plan DOD had approved, it would take 
5 years before we would get new helicopters.
  Think about the situation I just described. Here are these air men 
and women flying in this makeshift condition, in a situation where the 
Air Force has acknowledged that this equipment does not meet the 
mission requirements--does not meet the mission requirements. That is 
why we have to accelerate this timeline, and that is what this 
amendment does.
  Specifically, my amendment instructs the Air Force to get Black Hawk 
helicopters on contract by 2018, which accelerates the Air Force's 
current procurement plan by approximately 2 years. It would enable them 
to acquire Black Hawk helicopters under the Army contract. The Army is 
already buying these helicopters. It has been fully bid. They have been 
doing it for some period of time. It would allow the Air Force to 
piggyback on it and buy the Black Hawk helicopters they need. It saves 
millions of dollars, I think somewhere between $80 and $120 million. 
This is commonsense stuff. I think it is a win all the way around.
  This provision is coauthored by Senator Jon Tester, Democrat of 
Montana. Obviously, he is well aware of the problem, too, because they 
face the same difficulty across our border in Montana. It is 
cosponsored by the other members of the Senate's ICBM coalition. It is 
bipartisan. We have a number of Senators on board supporting it.
  Also, it is a companion bill to the amendment that Senator Tester and 
I included in the fiscal year 2017 Defense appropriations bill. We have 
already put $75 million in the Defense appropriations bill to start the 
acquisition. The dollars are there; this is the authorization that goes 
with the dollars. We worked very hard on this. We set it up the right 
way, and it is something we need to do.
  The second amendment I introduced will help to meet the challenge of 
training enough pilots to fly RPAs, or remotely piloted aircraft--
unmanned aircraft. I don't know that there is any mission in the Air 
Force or perhaps the whole DOD that is more in demand right now than 
RPAs, unmanned aircraft. All over the world, we are using this amazing 
tool--Global Hawk, Predator--and it is in tremendous demand right now. 
That also creates a tremendous demand for pilot training.
  Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed included language in the base 
bill that requires the Air Force to

[[Page 8187]]

make the transition to using enlisted pilots to fly RPAs, so we would 
have both officers and enlisted pilots able to fly RPAs. It is needed 
because of the incredible demand for pilots, which results from the 
incredible demand for this mission.
  I want to make sure that if the Air Force is going to make this 
transition, it can guarantee that pilots in the Air Guard, who use 
separate personnel systems and different training schedules, are able 
to receive training at a rate that is commensurate with their Active-
Duty counterparts. Obviously, we rely heavily on the Air Guard, and 
they need to have the necessary access to training. This amendment 
directs that the Air Force is able to use contractor services to ensure 
that there is enough training capacity to train Air National Guard 
pilots to fly RPAs in order to keep pace with Active-Duty pilot 
training.
  We know that the Air Force has had difficulty training RPA pilots 
fast enough to meet operational demands. One way to correct that 
deficiency is to use the private sector to augment the training the Air 
Force provides directly.
  In North Dakota, General Atomics--the manufacturer of the Predator 
and the Reaper--is building a training academy to train pilots. It is 
at the Grand Forks Air Force Base. It is in a technology park on the 
Grand Forks Air Force Base. They are going to train pilots for their 
foreign military sales. So for aircraft that has been purchased by our 
military allies--France, England, Italy, Netherlands, I think maybe 
Australia--there are a litany of our allies who are now using RPAs, and 
General Atomics will conduct that training at Grand Forks Air Force 
Base. There is no reason our own Air Force can't leverage that 
incredible resource as well or resources like it at other locations. 
Clearly, it is something we need to help leverage our pilot training.
  With that, I will wrap up. Again, I want to emphasize the importance 
of this and the National Defense Authorization Act. I thank both the 
chairman and the ranking member for their work.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to join together in a bipartisan way 
and pass this important legislation for our men and women in uniform.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, to be recognized to speak in support of 
the McCain amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4229

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, to Members of the body on both sides of 
the aisle, I appreciate the effort to produce a bipartisan national 
defense authorization bill. I think our committee did a good job in 
coming up with a bipartisan bill, but as a body and as a country we 
haven't done enough and this is a chance to rectify what I think is an 
incredibly big problem.
  We are at war--at least I think we are. We have been at war for the 
last 15 years. I cannot tell you how hard it has been on the all-
voluntary force. I was in the Air Force for 33 years. I retired last 
year. I had the pleasure of meeting a lot of men and women in uniform 
in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan 37 
times in the last decade. I have seen incredible sacrifice by those who 
serve our Nation to defend us against another
9/11 and what their families have gone through.
  As a nation and a Congress, what have we done to those who have been 
fighting this war? We are on track to have the smallest Army since 
1940. Sequestration--across-the-board budget cuts that have taken 
almost $1 trillion out of the defense budget--is insanity and nobody 
seems to give a damn about fixing it. None of us have to go and fly in 
planes that are about to fall out of the sky. None of us are commanders 
of troops and having to use duct tape to get through the day. None of 
us have to worry about going over and over and over to the war zone 
because the war is getting worse, not better.
  It looks like all of us should listen to our commanders who have said 
with one voice that the readiness of the U.S. military is in an 
emergency situation. The ability to give the flying hours our pilots 
need can't be done because of budget constraints. It looks like we 
would want to listen to the Chief of Staff of the Army, Air Force, 
Navy, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps who are telling us that 
sequestration has taken a toll on the ability to defend this Nation.
  We have had some patchwork solutions. We put some money back, but we 
are due to go back into sequestration next year. The amount of money we 
put back in the Ryan-Murray compromise was much appreciated, and 
Senator McCain is trying to put an $18 billion infusion into the 
military to meet their unfunded needs that would plus-up the Army by 
15,000 and would plus-up the Marine Corps and the National Guard and 
would give more money for operation and maintenance.
  The problem that seems lost on this Congress is that training hours 
have to give way to operational needs in theater. Let me give one small 
example. There is a Marine Corps readiness rapid response force in 
Spain that is stationed in Spain to deal with Benghazi-type events 
throughout Africa. They have to fly--in case something went bad--
thousands of miles. They have 12 aircraft, B-22s, and 2 teams. The 
Commandant of the Marine Corps is having to take six of these aircraft 
away from Spain to bring them back to the United States because we 
don't have enough airplanes to train the B-22 pilots. That means there 
is a hole in our ability to protect our citizens and diplomats in 
Africa.
  I cannot tell you the damage that sequestration has done to our 
military, and we seem unmoved by all of this. I cannot believe that the 
body is not responding more aggressively to the needs of our military, 
given the threats we are facing. How much more information do we need 
from our commanders to believe this is an emergency?
  I say to my Democratic colleagues, I know sequestration is hurting on 
the nondefense side, but all spending is not equal. I stand ready with 
you to find a way to buy back sequestration and pay for it by having 
some revenue come from closing loopholes and deductions like the 
supercommittee envisioned by using some revenue and some entitlement 
reform to buy back what is left on sequestration. I am not asking that 
you just spend money on defense and ignore the rest of the problems 
associated with sequestration.
  I have sat done on two separate occasions with Members on the other 
side to try to find ways to buy back sequestration so we could actually 
achieve the savings, and we have been able to not do a whole lot. Ryan 
and Murray came up with a fix that provided some relief that expires at 
the end of the year.
  The bottom line is this. The McCain amendment is making the argument 
that the $18 billion in this amendment has to be spent based on an 
emergency.
  Here is the question: Is there an emergency when it comes to the 
operational needs of this country on the defense side? Have we put our 
troops in a spot where we are risking their lives and their ability to 
prosecute the war because we have gone too far with defense cuts? I 
think we have, but if you don't believe me, you should listen to our 
commanders and hopefully I can read some of their quotes.
  With this $18 billion infusion, we are able to increase the size of 
the Army, and if you are in the Army, you could use a little help right 
about now. You have been busting your ass for the last 15 years, going 
back and forth, back and forth, and the way we reward your service is 
to decrease the size of the Army.
  I just got back from Asia, and everybody in Asia is wondering: What 
the heck is America doing? We are going to have the smallest Navy since 
1915. We are going to pivot to Asia with what? Under sequestration our 
ability to modernize the Navy has been lost. They don't have the money 
to build the new ships that we need to fight the wars of the future and 
contain a threatening China because they are in

[[Page 8188]]

a war now. They are robbing Peter to pay Paul. It looks like we would 
want to help the Marines. If you are a marine, boy, have you been on 
the tip of the spear.
  This amendment would allow us to have 3,000 more marines. What does 
that mean? It means we will have 3,000 more people to help prosecute 
the war and take a little burden off the Marine Corps, which has been 
absolutely worn out. Seventy percent of the F-18s in the Marine Corps 
have problems flying. We are cannibalizing planes to keep other planes 
in the air.
  To those who say we need to reform the Pentagon, you are right. Not 
only do we need to, we have. Fifty percent of the Department of Defense 
budget is personnel costs. Last year we reformed retirement. At 20 
years, you are not going to get half of your base pay. You will get 40 
percent in the future. That will save money. We are going to allow a 
Thrift Savings Plan for those who want to contribute 5 percent of their 
pay and we will match 5 percent, but they can't get the money until 
they are 59 or 60. That will be money for the servicemembers, but it 
comes later.
  We are going to ask our retirees to pay a little bit more for the 
military health care system because we haven't had a premium adjustment 
of any consequence since 1995. We are going to go to fixed-price 
contracts to deal with the abuse of cost-plus contracts to save money. 
We are trying to reduce the number of general officers because they 
have exploded.
  We are doing a lot of things to make the Pentagon operate better, but 
at the end of the day, you need people to defend this country. When 
sequestration kicks back in, we are going to go from 475,000 to 
420,000.
  What I am asking for is a bipartisan effort to stop the bleeding, to 
take the request for the military that is unfunded and desperately 
needed and give them a little bit of hope. We need to let them know 
Congress is listening to their problem because we are not. We are 
ignoring the problems of our military because if we were really serious 
about helping them, we would pass this by a voice vote, but, no, we 
can't increase defense spending by $18 billion to increase the size of 
the Army, Marine Corps, and the National Guard, to give more flight 
time to our pilots, more money to maintain the equipment and increase 
the size of the National Guard, which has really suffered during the 
last 15 years, and to buy more airplanes. The bottom line is, we can't 
do all of that because we have to increase nondefense spending.
  To my Democratic colleagues, if you don't think there is an emergency 
in the military, then you haven't been listening. To those Republicans 
who believe the appropriations bill has adequately funded the needs of 
the military, you haven't been listening. Well, I have been listening. 
Washington is broken in many ways. I enjoy being a Member of the 
Senate, and I respect my colleagues, even though we disagree, but this 
one I can't understand. I can't understand this. I can understand 
ideology, I can understand the differences between pro-life, pro-
choice, guns, revenue, and taxes. I can understand conservatism, 
liberalism, libertarianism. I can understand that in a great country we 
have differences, but this I can't understand.
  I can't understand why any of us would let this happen to our 
military. Whether you are a Libertarian, vegetarian, Republican, or 
Democrat, you need these men and women defending you so you can argue 
among yourselves. We can argue until the cows come home about how 
America should be, and it is a privilege to have this debate. While we 
are arguing among ourselves about how to make America great again or to 
become one, stronger together, or whatever damn phrase is out there, 
the people who are giving us the privilege to argue are being worn out 
and underfunded.
  Let me tell you the consequence of this. At a time the enemy is 
growing in capability to attack this country, we are gutting our 
ability to defend this country. A perfect storm is brewing. We have an 
America in retreat and in decline all over the world. We have a 
Presidential contest that is absolutely crazy. The Republican nominee, 
when he talks about foreign policy, it is complete gibberish.
  The Democratic nominee seems to be afraid to articulate how to change 
things. What is she going to do differently? Where is she on 
sequestration?
  Secretary Clinton, do you think now is the time to spend more on our 
military because we are in an emergency situation? Tell me why I am 
wrong. Tell me why you don't believe all of the things said by those in 
leadership.
  I am dumbfounded that this is hard given the state of readiness of 
our military. I am dumbfounded that we can't improve military readiness 
without increasing spending for food safety modernization. I am sure 
there is probably something legitimate there, but the Food Safety 
Modernization Act is not going to stop ISIL from coming here.
  There is $1.9 billion for water infrastructure. I am sure it is 
legitimate, but all I can say is that whatever problems we have with 
water, they pale in comparison to the problems we have with terrorism.
  Who are we as a body, who are we as a people if we can't see this 
being an emergency? If you are not listening and you have shut your 
mind and eyes to what is going on, then shame on you.
  This is the low point to me; that we cannot as a body agree that our 
men and women in the military are in a bad spot and they need our help 
yesterday. So vote the way you are going to vote, but don't tell me 
that the Appropriations Committee, of which I am a member, has fixed 
the problem because we haven't. We did appropriate more money, and I 
appreciate it, but the $18 billion on this list is not addressed by the 
Appropriations Committee's effort to do more, and don't tell me this is 
not an emergency because I don't believe it. Don't hold the men and 
women hostage from getting the money they desperately need to defend us 
all because you want more money somewhere else.
  Whatever differences we have, whatever hopes and dreams we have as 
individuals or collectively as Americans are at risk because the people 
we are fighting would kill every one of us if they could. They could 
care less if you are a Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative. 
They want to hurt us, and they want to hurt us badly, and the only way 
to keep them from hurting us is for some of us to go over there in 
partnership with others over there to keep the fight from coming back 
over here.
  It looks like all of us can agree on giving the people going over 
there the best chance they can to survive the fight, come back home and 
protect us all, but apparently we can't get there. Shame on us. Shame 
on us all.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________