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

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016

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

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

Pending:

McCain amendment No. 1463, in the nature of a substitute.
McCain amendment No. 1456 (to amendment No. 1463), to
require additional information supporting long-range plans
for construction of naval vessels.
Cornyn amendment No. 1486 (to amendment No. 1463), to
require reporting on energy security issues involving Europe
and the Russian Federation, and to express the sense of
Congress regarding ways the United States could help
vulnerable allies and partners with energy security.
Markey amendment No. 1645 (to amendment No. 1463), to
express the sense of Congress that exports of crude oil to
United States allies and partners should not be determined to
be consistent with the national interest if those exports
would increase energy prices in the United States for
American consumers or businesses or increase the reliance of
the United States on imported oil.
Reed (for Blumenthal) modified amendment No. 1564 (to
amendment No. 1463), to enhance protections accorded to
servicemembers and their spouses.
McCain (for Paul) modified amendment No. 1543 (to amendment
No. 1463), to strengthen employee cost savings suggestions
programs within the Federal Government.
Reed (for Durbin) modified amendment No. 1559 (to amendment
No. 1463), to prohibit the award of Department of Defense
contracts to inverted domestic corporations.
Fischer/Booker amendment No. 1825 (to amendment No. 1463),
to authorize appropriations for national security aspects of
the Merchant Marine for fiscal years 2016 and 2017.
McCain (for Hatch) amendment No. 1911 (to amendment No.
1456), to require a report on the Department of Defense
definition of and policy regarding software sustainment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to tell my colleagues that I
think we are winding down here. We have several other issues to
address, but I think it is very possible that we could see the end here
for final passage of the bill. There are still some issues that need to
be resolved, but I am grateful for the progress all of my colleagues
have made on both sides of the aisle.
I would like to call up and speak briefly on McCain amendment No.
1482. This amendment would prohibit the Secretary of Defense or the
Secretary of a military department from funding or conducting medical
research or development projects unless the Secretary determines that
the research or project is designed to protect, enhance, or restore the
health and safety of members of the Armed Forces through phases of
deployment, combat, medical recovery, and rehabilitation.
I will not seek a vote on this amendment, but I will say that it is
an issue which must be addressed if we are going to spend American tax
dollars on defending this Nation, the security, and the men and women
who are serving.
What I am going to show my colleagues is what happens with almost any
bad deal around here, and that is the incredible increase in
congressionally directed spending on medical research which is on the
Department of Defense authorization bill--not on the Health and Human
Services appropriations but on Defense. When we are cutting defense,
when we are experiencing all the bad results of sequestration, we
continue to grow to nearly $1 billion in medical research that has
nothing to do with defense.
I am all for medical research. I am all in. The National Institutes
of Health is doing great things. I am all for it. But when we take it
out of defense spending rather than what it should be taken out of,
which is Health

[[Page S4223]]

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

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

My friends, when Senator Ted Stevens is saying that a congressionally
directed spending program has gotten out of hand, we know there is a
problem. Yet, despite the urgings of Senator Stevens in 2006, the
problem has only gotten worse since then. Last year alone Congress
appropriated $971.6 million for medical research programs that the
Department of Defense did not request in its budget. More than $280
million of that money was appropriated for cancer research in the
defense budget while six other Federal agencies spent more than $50
billion on cancer research in fiscal year 2015.
I will put that in perspective. For the amount of money that Congress
appropriated for medical research last year at the Department of
Defense--again, most of which had nothing to do with the military and
which the Department did not request--we could have bought 12 F-18
Superhornets, 2 littoral combat ships or roughly 1 Army brigade combat
team.
My friends, in these days of sequestration, that is not acceptable.
Once again, I am sure every Member of this body agrees that this
research is vitally important to Americans suffering from these
diseases, to the families and friends who care for them, and to all of
those who know the pain and grief of losing a loved one. But this
research should not be funded by the Department of Defense. It belongs
in civilian departments and agencies of our government.
Appropriating money in this way only harms our national security by
reducing the funding available for military-relevant medical research
that helps protect service men and women on the battlefield and for
military capabilities they desperately need to perform their missions.
Furthermore, this kind of misguided spending only puts decisionmaking
about medical research in the hands of lobbyists and politicians
instead of medical experts where it belongs.
So I say to my colleagues, what I had proposed and will not seek a
vote on--because the result is very clear--is a commonsense amendment.
It focuses the Department's research efforts on medical research that
will lead to lifesaving advancements in battlefield medicine and new
therapies for recovery and rehabilitation of servicemembers wounded
both physically and mentally on the battlefield. It could finally begin
the long overdue process of shifting the hundreds of millions of
dollars of nonmilitary medical research spending out of the Department
of Defense and into the appropriate civilian departments and agencies
of our government. That is a change that needs to start now, and I hope
my colleagues, especially my friends on the Appropriations Committee,
will make that happen.
I want to point out again that we started in fiscal year 1992 with
$25 million. We are now up to nearly $1 trillion, and I am sure that
the appropriators have an equal or like amount that they are proposing.
I see that my colleague from Illinois is here on the floor, and I
know he will defend with vigor, passion, love, and every emotion he has
what we are doing because of those who are suffering from illnesses
such as breast cancer and all of the other terrible things that afflict
our society. I say to my friends who will come to the floor in a high
dudgeon over what I am proposing: I am not saying that we should cut
any of these programs--not a single one. We should probably increase
them. But let's put them where they belong, and that is not in the
Department of Defense.
While I have the floor, I want to talk about some other issues.
Former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates said in an interview over the
weekend:

What it feels like to me is really what the President said
last week, which was a lack of strategy. Just adding a few
hundred troops doing more of the same I think is not likely

[[Page S4224]]

to make much of a difference. . . . We should have had a
strategy a year ago. . . . And we have to be willing, if we
think ISIS is truly a threat to the United States and to our
interests, we have to be willing to put Americans at risk.
That's just a fact of life. . . . [I]f the mission [President
Obama] has set for the military is to degrade and destroy
ISIS, the rules of engagement that he has imposed on them
prevent them from achieving that mission.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why do I quote from that? It is because every time we ask a question
as to what the policy is, whether it is strictly defensive against a
cyber attack or whether offensive in order to prevent one, the policy
has ``not been determined.''

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

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

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

To grab the equivalent in the Chinese system, I would not
have thought twice. I would not have asked permission . . .
This is not ``shame on China.'' This is ``shame on us'' for
not protecting that kind of information.

So I urge my colleagues to understand that this new issue of cyber
security is an area which the United States of America, in the view of
many experts, does not have a significant advantage. It is an area
where, in some respects, we may even be at a disadvantage, if we look
at the extraordinary events that have taken place in the issue of cyber
security. The latest information, of course, of 4 million people has to
get our attention. It has to get the attention of the administration.
We need to work together. I stand ready--and I know my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle do as well--to sit down and come up with
some policies and then implement those policies into ways of combating
this new form of warfare we call cyber.
Again, I anticipate the comments of my friend from Illinois who will
vigorously defend all of the research that is done in medical research.
I wish to point out, again, that I am not in opposition to one single
dime of any kind of medical research. I say it is coming out of the
wrong place. We cannot make a logical argument that this belongs in the
Department of Defense. Some of it does, and I have pointed that out.
The majority of it belongs with other agencies.
When we are facing sequestration and when we are cutting our national
security to the bone, according to our military leaders who have said
that continued sequestration puts the lives of the men and women who
are serving in the military in danger, we cannot afford another $1
billion to be spent on medical research. We want the money spent on
medical research. We want it spent from the right place.
I look forward to addressing the remaining amendments with my
colleague and friend from Rhode Island.

[[Page S4225]]

Hopefully, we can wrap up the Defense authorization bill sometime very
soon. Then we can move on to conference and then bring the bill back
after the conference to the floor of the Senate so we can carry out our
first and most urgent responsibility; that is, the security of the
Nation and men and women who defend it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me say at the outset that the Senator
from Arizona, although we are of opposite political faith, has been my
friend and colleague for a long time--since we first were elected
together in a class in the House of Representatives. Our friendship and
relationship has had its peaks and valleys. I hope we are at a peak at
this moment. I will concede, before I say a word about his amendment,
that I have no question in my mind, nor should anyone, about the
commitment of the Senator from Arizona to the men and women who show
extraordinary courage in battling for the United States of America in
our military. The Senator's own personal life is a testament to his
dedication to the U.S. military. I know he has brought that dedication
to his service as the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and in
bringing this authorization bill to the floor.
Secondly, I don't question his commitment to medical research either.
As he said, when we reach a certain stage in life, we may value it more
because we realize our own vulnerabilities and the vulnerabilities of
those we love. So what I am about to say is not a reflection of his
commitment to the military nor his commitment to basic medical
research, but I do question this amendment, which Senator McCain has
said he will not offer but has filed, and I have been prepared for
several days now to debate.
Here is the question: Should we have within the Department of Defense
a medical research capacity? I think yes, and I think for obvious
reasons--because there are certain challenges to the men and women who
serve in our military and to their families which relate to their
military service.
Secondly, if we are going to have such a military research program,
should politicians and lobbyists, as the Senator said, be able to pick
the diseases and pick the research? No, of course not. That is why this
appropriations bill, which we will consider later this week, and this
authorization bill address a situation where this is done by
competitive grant. In other words, if we have researchers at some
hospital who are researching a medical condition important to our
military, we have to compete for it. It is not automatic. The decision
is not made by Senators or Congressmen. It is made by medical
professionals about which research makes a difference. So I think
medical research is important to our military. Politicians shouldn't
pick and choose those researchers and those research grants; it ought
to be done by professionals.
Third, this undertaking in the Department of Defense is substantial.
It is about $1.8 billion for all of the different medical research. In
perspective, the funding for the National Institutes of Health is about
$30 billion. This is relatively small.
Dr. Francis Collins heads up the NIH and I went to him and I said:
Doctor, I am working on this defense medical research bill; I want to
make sure we don't waste a penny. I don't want to duplicate anything
you are doing at NIH.
He said: Trust me, we will not. We coordinate everything we do. What
they do is complementary to our work and what we do is complimentary to
their work. We are not wasting a penny.
So I think those three things are an important starting point in this
debate. Medical research is important to national defense. Politicians
have no role in choosing who is going to do the medical research. Also,
whatever we do is going to be coordinated with medical research at
leading agencies such as the National Institutes of Health.
There are a lot of items on this list of research that I think very
few people would ever quarrel with. Should we have a joint warfighter
medical account in research? Should we have orthotics and prosthetics
research for those who have lost a limb in military service? How about
a military burn research unit, wound care research, military dental
research--all of these topics relate to actual service.

The only specifics which the Senator from Arizona raised, questioning
why the Department of Defense would get involved in research, I would
like to address. One item he specified is breast cancer. It is true the
second largest undertaking for breast cancer research in America takes
place at the Department of Defense. It started there--and I will be
honest--I remember why. It started there because the funding through
the National Institutes of Health was not reliable or predictable, and
the Department of Defense made a commitment: We will make our
commitment to breast cancer research.
Is there a reason it would be in the Department of Defense? Even
though the Senator from Arizona has raised questions about it, I wish
to call his attention to the following: In 2013, researchers in the
Department of Defense developed a vaccine that promises to protect
women against a recurrence of breast cancer. Breast cancer is a disease
diagnosed in female troops at a rate 20 percent to 40 percent higher
than the civilian population. I am a liberal arts lawyer, so I don't
know why. Can I figure out why more women in our military are diagnosed
with breast cancer than women in our civilian population? I don't know
the answer to that, but I want to know the answer to that. I want to
know if there is something--anything--environmental or otherwise that
our troops, and particularly women in the military, are exposed to that
makes them more likely to come down with a diagnosis of breast cancer.
Is that a legitimate question at the Department of Defense? It is
obvious it is.
How good are these researchers if we put several billion dollars into
breast cancer research in the Department of Defense? The researchers
recently completed a 10-year study of this vaccine known as E75, tested
on more than 100 female soldiers recovering from breast cancer and they
had a similar test group of civilian women. The research is happening
within the Cancer Vaccine Development Program, an Army research network
studying vaccines' potential to fight breast, ovarian, uterine, and
prostate cancers.
Researchers indicated that in trials, the vaccine cut the risk in
half that a woman's breast cancer will return--in half. Is it worth it?
Is it worth it for us, through the Department of Defense, to put money
into breast cancer research when female troops have a rate of breast
cancer diagnosis 20 to 40 percent higher, when these researchers are
finding a vaccine which in trials is cutting the recurrence of breast
cancer in half compared to other populations? It seems very obvious to
me.
This is not the first time the defense researchers in breast cancer
have done extraordinary things. In 1993, defense researchers developed
Herceptin, now FDA approved, and one of the most widely used drugs to
fight breast cancer--developed at the Department of Defense. Do we want
to take the research decisions away from the researchers?
The amendment which the Senator from Arizona offers would give the
Secretary of Defense the last word as to whether we do this research.
Now, I have known Secretaries of Defense, and they are talented
individuals, but when it comes to making medical decisions about
medical research, I don't think any of them are qualified to do that.
Let's leave it in the hands of the professionals, not in the hands of
politicians, not in the hands of political appointees, and not in the
hands of bureaucrats.
Let me also say this: When we look at the list of diseases that are
studied at the Department of Defense, some of them may sound odd. Lou
Gehrig's disease--ALS--why would we include that on a list for
Department of Defense research? Let me explain. Men and women who have
served in the U.S. military are 60 percent more likely than civilians
to develop Lou Gehrig's disease--men and women who serve in the
military. Gulf war veterans are twice as likely as the general
population to develop Lou Gehrig's disease. Should we invest money for
medical research in the Department of Defense for Lou Gehrig's disease?
And then should we ask the basic question, Why? Why would it be more
likely that one

[[Page S4226]]

would develop Lou Gehrig's disease if one served in the U.S. military
or if one was in the Gulf war? Those are legitimate medical questions
that relate to our military. For the Senator to offer an amendment to
take out any of that type of research, I think that is the wrong thing
to do.
We don't have to speak about traumatic brain injury. Everybody knows
what has happened. We have seen the returning veterans--roadside
bombs--what they have gone through. Between 48,000 and 169,000--
169,000--military servicemembers who have served and are serving in
Iraq and in Afghanistan have developed post-traumatic epilepsy--head
injuries. Post-traumatic epilepsy is a form of epilepsy resulting from
traumatic brain injury. I put a provision in here for competitive
grants on epilepsy and seizures for this reason: $7.5 million--we have
169,000 who are dealing with these traumatic brain injuries and dealing
with seizures and epilepsy afterward. Is this a legitimate area of
Department of Defense medical research? Absolutely. We cannot ignore
the reality of what our troops have gone through and what they need
when they come home. To cut out this research would be a mistake.
Let me also say, in 2013 alone, 100,000 servicemembers sought
treatment for seizures at our veterans hospitals. It is a serious,
serious problem.
I could go through every single element I have here of medical
research at the Department of Defense. I hope the examples I have given
illustrate that men and women who serve our country face medical
challenges which the ordinary civilian population may not face. I think
we have a special obligation to them to engage in the research that can
make their lives whole again and give them a chance to come back from
our military and have a happy and full life, which we promised them. We
said: If you will hold up your hand and give an oath to America that
you will risk your life for our country, we will stand by you when you
come home, and that includes more than a GI bill to go to school. It is
more than a place to live. It is even more than basic medical care. It
involves medical research.

The final point I wish to make is this. This Senator will never
apologize for trying to come up with more money for medical research.
Never. Once every 67 seconds in America someone is diagnosed with
Alzheimer's in America. When my staff told me that, I said you have to
be wrong. They are not. It is once every 67 seconds. We spent $200
billion in Medicare and Medicaid on Alzheimer's patients last year, not
to mention the devastating costs to individual families who have
someone they love suffering from this disease.
We don't have an Alzheimer's provision. Well, we have a small
Alzheimer's provision in this particular medical research bill. Am I
going to stand here to apologize for putting $12 million in Alzheimer's
research? I will tell you, if we could delay the onset of Alzheimer's
by 1 month, by 2 months, by 6 months, God willing, if we could find a
cure, we would more than pay for this medical research over and over
and over again. We would spare people from the pain and suffering they
go through with this disease and spare their families as well. When it
comes to medical research, I will never stand and apologize for putting
money into medical research. Every one of us has someone we love in our
family facing a terrible, threatening, scary diagnosis and praying to
God that there has been some area of research that may find a cure or a
surgery. That is what this is about.
I am glad the Senator has withdrawn his amendment. I repeat what I
said at the outset. I will never ever question his commitment to our
members in uniform and our veterans, nor will I question his commitment
to medical research, but I will be sending him information that I think
demonstrates what we are doing here has a direct impact on military
families and military veterans.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
three pages of organizations that support my effort to stop this
amendment.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

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

(June 16, 2015)

Individual Letters/Grassroots activation

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

Defense Health Research Consortium Sign-On Letter/Grassroots

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

Ovarian Cancer Community Letter

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

Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I, too, would like to speak on this
National Defense Authorization Act and observe that we just, I think,
had a very important exchange between the distinguished chairman of the
Armed Services Committee and the Senator from Illinois. They disagree
on an amendment that will actually not be voted

[[Page S4227]]

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

In Starkville, MS, the authorization and appropriations bills are
integral to completing the Army Reserve Center for equipping and
training military personnel. Along the gulf coast, these Defense
bills--the authorization and the appropriations bills--would support a
new Army National Guard aviation depot at the Gulfport-Biloxi Airport,
as well as the continued mission of over 11,000 Americans who work at
Keesler Air Force Base. I am proud of these, and I am proud of what
they do for our overall national defense of the United States.
Mississippi is just one of many States to take part in this. Simply
put, the future of our defense should not be put in jeopardy because of
disagreements about unrealistic domestic funding issues. We can get to
those issues, but defending the United States of America is something
only the Federal Government can do. We can't devolve national defense
down to the States. We have to do it in this building, in this body, on
this floor of the Senate. Besides, it is well worth saying and
reminding my colleagues that this bill gives the President every penny
he has requested for national defense. It meets the $612 billion
requested by President Obama in his budget. So it really should not be
partisan at all.
I will go back to what the Senator from Illinois said. He made a
stirring defense of this legislation, I think one that should be
listened to by the President of the United States. He should listen to
the fact that we had an 83-to-15 vote on cloture, and we had a 22-to-4
vote in the Appropriations Committee.
We have had a few partisan flareups along the course of this
legislation, but I think as we get to the end of the day, I am more and
more encouraged about the prospect of this bill. I think we can pass it
tomorrow with an overwhelming vote, which shows we are voting for it
not as Republicans, not as Democrats but as Americans, because we want
to defend the vital national interests of the United States of America.
Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much.
Mr. President, standing here listening to the debate and discussion
by colleagues on both sides of the aisle really makes the point that
many of us are saying. We need a new budget agreement. We have people--
I think we all agree on both sides of the aisle that we need to defend
America. There is no doubt about that. In order to do that, we need to
look at national security both in its funding for the Department of
Defense, but we also need to be looking at what are the components to
national security. Many of the key agencies that are not in the
Department of Defense are also important to the national security.
Yet, at the same time, we have defense with this budget gimmick, and
that is what it is. It is a budget gimmick to avoid the caps we have on
spending on both defense and discretionary spending. What this bill is,
is a gimmick to have the money through something called OCO, which was
meant to be a specific expense for overseas contingency funds. It was
meant

[[Page S4228]]

to deal with specific wars. Now it has been plussed-up by several
millions and millions of dollars to avoid the budget caps.
This isn't a budget debate here. I will be saying more about it on
the floor. But I just want to say to my colleagues, think about
national security. Yes, we do need a strong national defense and we do
need to support our troops and we do need to support our military
families. We do need to support our troops. We do need to support our
military families. That is what I am going to be elaborating on in a
minute. But we also have to look at the other aspects.

First of all, you need a State Department. Part of national security
is diplomacy. You need a State Department.
Second, in the State Department, you need Embassy security. If you
don't want another Benghazi, you must put money in the Federal budget
to make sure we have Embassy security. You have to fund the State
Department. That is in discretionary funding.
You do not like the cyber attacks? We are going to have meetings, and
we are going to hold hearings, and--hoorah--all of the things we should
have been doing 3 to 5 years ago but were stopped on this Senate floor
because of concerns of the chamber of commerce that we would
overregulate.
We have a Department of Homeland Security. It needs to be funded. It
is in discretionary spending.
You want to have a cyber security workforce? Yes. They need to be
trained at our great colleges and universities. We need a Department of
Education with the Pell Grants and so on to be able to help our people
get the jobs for the 21st century so they can do the type of work we
are talking about we need them to do here.
I could go through other agencies.
I am not here to stand up for government agencies. I am here to stand
up for America. I am here to say: Yes, we do need national security. We
need to fund the Department of Defense, but we need to fund those other
agencies and programs that are integral to national security. That is
why I think we need a new budget agreement along the lines of Ryan-
Murray, and we need to end the sequester.
I hope--and I call upon leadership on both sides of the aisle but
particularly on the other side of the aisle: Let's get to it now,
sooner rather than later.
I am the vice chair of the Appropriations Committee and am working
very closely with my esteemed colleague, the senior Senator from
Mississippi, on trying to bring bills to the floor, but we simply have
to come up with a new agreement.
So we will go through a lot of parliamentary motions and commotion,
but I am not so sure we are going to get the locomotion we need to look
out for America. We cannot let our military be hollowed out. We cannot
let our country be hollowed out. We need to really move ahead with this
new agreement, and a perfect example is why I come to the floor.
All through this debate, I have heard that the most important tool to
a strong military is the military themselves, the military and their
families. Consistent through all, from both sides of the aisle, is that
we must look out for our troops. Well, I could not agree with that
more. Yet, what is it that we know in this bill, tucked away, is really
an erosion of one of the key earned benefits our military and their
families and the retirees have--commissaries. Commissaries.
Commissaries have been around since the 19th century. They have been
around since 1826. Military families have been able to shop at networks
of stores that provide modestly priced goods--primarily groceries--to
military families and to retirees. There are 246 of them, many in our
own country, many overseas, many in our country where they are only
place our military can go. There are those in some other countries
where they are not even looked upon and welcomed in some of these
countries, even though we are there.
So what is in this bill? Two things: One, let's privatize the
commissaries; the other is, let's cut their budget by $322 million.
I am for saving money by eliminating Pentagon waste, but I will tell
you that no money is wasted at a commissary. In fact, just the opposite
happens. The commissaries are the most popular earned benefit the
military has.
Also, this is not Senator Barb talking; this is coming from the
military themselves. If you listen to the National Military and
Veterans Alliance, they say this: Commissary and exchanges are a vital
part of pay and compensation. The military community greatly value
these benefits. The proposed cuts would dismantle the commissary
benefit relied upon by shortening hours and raising prices.
When we look at commissaries, we know that people shop there, they
save money, and at the same time they are also a major source of
employment.
What I want to do is work with my colleague, the Senator from
Oklahoma, a member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Jim Inhofe.
It is his amendment. We want to prevent the commissary privatization
pilot program. I also have an additional amendment. I would like to
restore the $322 million in cuts to commissaries. We have an offset to
be able to pay for it as well. The benefits of the commissaries are
significant. That is why I want these two amendments to be offered.
They feed our troops, they help military families stretch their
budgets, and they provide jobs to military spouses and to military
children old enough to work and military retirees.
The military families tell me they get significant savings--sometimes
as much as 30 percent--on their bill. For a family of four, that could
be $4,500 per year. As I said, 60 percent of the commissary workers are
spouses or retirees at these commissaries.
DOD says we want commissaries to be more self-sustaining. They have
proposed cuts of more than $1 billion through 2020. They are talking
about, in fiscal year 2016, cutting $322 million. Next year, they want
to cut $1 billion. And they also want to look at how to privatize.
Joining with my colleague from Oklahoma, the distinguished senior
Senator, Jim Inhofe--he has legislation to deal with the privatization.
In this bill that is pending, they implement this commissary pilot
plan. Well, we have heard that before. I think it is a plane without a
pilot. But we do not even know if it is a good option. It was made up
by Pentagon bean counters, Pentagon bean slicers who were told: Find
savings. So they went after the commissaries.
Well, the Senator from Oklahoma and I want to require the DOD and GAO
to study the impact of privatization before a plan can be implemented.
In other words, before you privatize, why don't you study the impact?
The Senator from Oklahoma is proposing that this study be due in
September so that we would be able to act appropriately in our
appropriations. I support him in his amendment.
I also am looking for support in the cuts to commissaries. Right now,
proposed in both the authorization and then they tried it in our
appropriations bill, is a cut in the appropriations by $322
million. This means hours would be cut, so instead of operating 7 days
a week, they would be open 5. It would raise prices in many instances
by as much as 25 percent. In far-flung places such as Hawaii or Alaska,
prices could even go up by as much as 50 percent because of the formula
being used.

This is just not right. Of all of the places that we could save
money, let's not go after commissaries. Let's not go after
commissaries. They help military families and retirees stretch their
budgets. For many of our young military, particularly the enlisted, the
commissary is the place where they learn how to stretch their dollar.
At the same time, it provides employment to military spouses, in some
instances military children, and also to retirees.
What is the problem here? We cannot get votes on our amendments. We
cannot get a vote on the privatization issue proposed by the Senator
from Oklahoma, and I cannot get a vote on my amendment to restore the
$322 million.
I know the leadership is now meeting on how to wrap up this bill.
Well, I don't want to wrap up this bill. I think that what we need to
do is to be able to vote on these two amendments.
We have had all kinds of amendments. We had one on the sage-grouse. I
know the sage-grouse is a protected species. As an appropriator, I had
to deal with this as a rider on the appropriations bills. So I am not
against the

[[Page S4229]]

sage-grouse. I am not against talking about the sage-grouse. But why,
with all of the problems facing America, do we need a sage-grouse
amendment on defense when I cannot get a vote on protecting
commissaries, protecting an earned benefit of our military, helping
them stretch their dollar, and making sure some of them have a chance
to work on a military base? Why can't I get an amendment? Why can't the
distinguished Senator from Oklahoma get a vote on his amendment that
would call for a halt to the privatization pilot until we get a study
from GAO on impact? So you can stand up for the sage-grouse, but I will
tell you that I am standing up for military families.
I urge the leadership at the highest level and the leadership moving
this authorization to give Inhofe-Mikulski privatization of
commissaries a vote and give me a chance to offer my amendment. Let the
Senate decide. Let's not have me stopped and stymied because of
parliamentary procedure.
You might say--and to everybody listening--well, Barbara, you are
pretty outspoken. You are not shy. Why can't you offer your amendment?
Under the rules of the body we are now operating under, I have to get
consent. That means all 99 other Senators should not object to me
offering an amendment. Well, I am stuck. So what I need is for the
leadership to give me the consent to at least have my amendment
discussed and debated in the light of day. I want to hear their
justification why they have to go after commissaries. Let's stand
united. Let's get a new budget agreement. Let me offer our amendment.
We should not be fighting with each other over these things. Instead
of going after commissaries, let's go after the bad guys in the world
and let's do it in a united way.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

3rd Anniversary of DACA Program

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise today to mark the third anniversary
of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, which was this
week. Since 2012, the program the President implemented, which has been
known as DACA, has offered temporary relief from deportation to
immigrants who arrived in the United States as young children. It has
helped almost 665,000 young people since June of 2012, including more
than 10,000 in Virginia. The DACA Program announced by the President
has allowed young people to contribute to our communities, live without
constant fear of deportation, keep families together, and provide
economic and educational opportunities for these young recipients.
I want to thank President Obama and the administration because DACA
has provided relief to thousands of youngsters who seek only to pursue
opportunity, provide for their families, and contribute to the only
place they have ever known as home--the United States.
Immigrants are not the only ones who benefit. DACA enforces the
universal reputation of this country that we are proud of, that we
value our immigrant heritage and we embrace and celebrate their
contributions to American history, industry, and culture. This is a
value which is something we feel very deeply in Virginia. We feel it
more every day.
When I was born in 1958, 1 out of 100 Virginians had been born in
another country. Today, in 2015, one out of nine Virginians was born in
another country. That period coincides with the moving of the Virginia
economy from bottom quarter per capita income to top quarter.
Immigration and the contributions of immigrants to our State have been
tremendously positive.
More than 10,000 youngsters in Virginia have benefited by DACA. We
are 13th among all States. Let me just tell you two quick stories.
Hareth Andrade exemplifies what DACA recipients, if given the
opportunity, can give back to their communities. Hareth arrived in the
United States from Bolivia, brought by adults. She arrived without her
parents. She excelled in school. She attended Washington-Lee High
School right here in Arlington. She took advanced placement and
international baccalaureate classes.
During a campus visit as she graduated, she learned for the first
time that her undocumented status would be a barrier to earning a
college education. But instead of giving up on her dream, she organized
with other students to form DREAMers of Virginia, an organization that
has led efforts to provide students access to instate tuition and
college admission for kids just like her.
After the President announced the DACA Program in June of 2012,
Hareth became a recipient, and she has since transferred from community
college to Trinity Washington University, where she expects to graduate
with a degree in international affairs next year.
Another student, Jung Bin Cho, also has seen doors open to him
because of DACA, doors to educational opportunities such as the fine
institution of Virginia Tech, where he now attends. Cho arrived in the
United States with his parents from South Korea when he was 7 years
old. He attended elementary school and graduated high school in
Springfield, VA, where he played on the defensive line for the football
team.
His dream--a lot of Virginians have this dream--was attending
Virginia Tech, and he gained admission to the school. But at the same
time he first realized that his undocumented status eliminated him from
instate tuition or any financial aid. Because he couldn't afford it, he
attended community college and worked two jobs to support himself. But
following DACA and the decision last year to grant instate tuition to
young Virginians--a decision for which I applaud our Governor and
general assembly--Cho reapplied to Virginia Tech, won admission, and he
now is able to attend Virginia Tech, where he will pursue a degree in
business and hopefully participate in this great expansion of the
Virginia economy that so many of our immigrants have been proud to
lead.
For young people such as Hareth and Cho, DACA makes sense. Both came
here as young children. They didn't come here on their open volition;
they were brought here. They only know Virginia as home, and they seek
to study, work, and build a life in this country. As proud Virginians,
they want to return the opportunities afforded to them by using their
talents to improve their communities and making it a better place for
everybody.
In addition to the humanitarian aspect, as you heard, these talented
students are the kinds of people who accelerate our economy. DACA is
good for our economy, too. So I strongly support its continuation, but
I also wish to encourage my colleagues--and I think we all agree,
Democrat, Republican, Independent--we all agree this program is best
not by Executive order but by legislation.
We are now almost exactly 2 years from the date when the Senate
passed comprehensive immigration reform on this floor in June of 2013.
For 2 years, after a strong bipartisan effort, we have waited for
action--any action--by the House, not just taking up our bill but doing
their own bill and then, in a conference, finding a compromise, which
we can do.
It is time that the House act. It is time that the Senate and the
House sit down together and do comprehensive immigration reform. We can
give DREAMers and millions of other families who continue to live in
the shadows an earned pathway to citizenship. It is time to pass that
reform. It is in the best traditions of our Nation and in the best
value traditions of my Commonwealth that we do so.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The majority whip.

Defense Appropriations Act

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, after the Senate concludes its work on the
Defense authorization bill tomorrow--a very important part of our
responsibility--we will then move to consider the Defense
Appropriations Act. This actually is the legislation that will pay the
bills for the Department of Defense and make sure our men and women in
uniform get the resources they need in order to do their job, not to
mention their pay, which is why it is so disturbing to see the
leadership of our minority in the Senate announce in the papers here in
Washington that they are going to begin what they call a filibuster
summer. In other words, they are going to use the power they have as
the minority to block important funding bills, beginning with the bill
that pays for our national security, in what can only be called a cheap
political stunt.

[[Page S4230]]

Why they have decided to do that on this important Defense
appropriations bill is, frankly, beyond me. I think I understand what
their general point is, which is they don't think the Federal
Government spends enough money, and so they want to spend more money,
and they have no concern whatsoever for the fact that under this
administration, we have raised the national debt by trillions of
dollars, making sure that my generation will not end up having to pay
that money back, but the next generation will unless we meet our
responsibilities.
So for them to pull this kind of political stunt and say ``You know
what, we are not spending enough money, we are not incurring enough
debt, and so we are going to force a filibuster on the Defense
appropriations bill'' in order to extort more spending, more debt, more
irresponsibility--the bill our colleagues on the other side of the
aisle are pledging to filibuster is not controversial in itself because
it would, as I said, provide for our military and would help our troops
maintain their status as the greatest military in the world. It also
includes simple initiatives that make a lot of sense and serve our
troops well, such as giving the men and women who wear the uniform a
modest pay raise. Yet the Democratic leader still plans to block this
legislation and stymie this Chamber's efforts to fund our troops.
We saw a little glimpse of this last week when Senate Democrats, with
the exception of seven, blocked us moving an amendment to deal with
cyber security. We saw that their timing could not have been worse
because, of course, then it was announced that millions of records at
the Office of Personnel Management had been hacked by the Chinese
Government and some of the most sensitive security clearance background
records were now in their hands--a dramatic act of counterintelligence
and espionage.
Then, when we offered an amendment to the Defense authorization bill
that would deal with cyber security, would allow more information
sharing, would allow lawsuit protection for those who shared
information in order to protect the privacy and the information of
American citizens, it was blocked by all but seven Democrats on the
other side.

So while I have been by and large encouraged by this new Congress and
what we have been able to accomplish together in a bipartisan way, I
think there are some very troubling signs on the horizon, starting with
this ill-considered idea of filibuster summer, throwing a temper
tantrum until you can get more money that we don't have to spend on
your pet projects. But I think their decision to hold Defense
appropriations bill hostage is just inexcusable. This is the essential
funding for our military, for national security.
I should point out, as my colleagues across the aisle use this bill
as leverage to spend more taxpayer dollars on things like the IRS, not
long ago they vocally opposed the obstructionist tactics they are now
employing. Here are the words of the Democratic leader, Senator Harry
Reid, in 2013. He said: ``It's time to get back to setting fiscal
policy through the regular order . . . rather than through hostage
taking.'' I agreed with his comments then, and I wish he would act
consistently with those words today.
The American people aren't served well by these kinds of manufactured
crises and threats to cut off funding for our troops. And that is why
the new Republican Senate, under Majority Leader McConnell, has
prioritized and restored the kind of regular order that Senator Reid
talked about in 2013. Finally, the Congress and the Senate are actually
getting back to work on a bipartisan basis.
As I have said, we have had some signs of progress. I know Majority
Leader McConnell likes to quote Woody Hayes from Ohio State when he
talks about the nature of the progress we have made. He said: ``Three
yards and a cloud of dust.'' I like to think of it more as a baseball
analogy of singles and an occasional double. But you get the basic
point. We are actually beginning to make some progress, and that is why
I find so troubling these signs of filibuster summer and this
announcement by our Democratic friends.
We have done our best after this last election, after the American
people entrusted us with the majority of the House and the Senate, to
deliver on our promises. We have held more rollcall votes on amendments
in the past 5 months than the minority leader, as the Democratic
leader, allowed in the entire year when they were under control--more
rollcall votes on amendments in the last 5 months than Democrats
allowed in an entire year when they were in control.
The truth is that our Democratic colleagues, I think, like it better,
too, because not only was the minority--Republicans--shut out when
Senator Reid was majority leader, he shut out Members of his own party,
the majority party. Now, how you explain that back home, I am not too
clear.
But it is not only Senator Reid who has made this commitment to
restoring regular order and eschewing this idea of hostage taking,
which now they are talking about doing.
Here are the comments of one other member of their Senate leadership,
the Senator from Washington, Ms. Murray. In 2013, she said the American
people had no patience for ``politicians holding the economy and the
Federal Government hostage to extract concessions or score political
points.''
I agree with her, and I agreed with Senator Reid in 2013, but these
are the exact same Democratic leaders who are now today threatening the
same sort of hostage taking they condemned in 2013.
Well, I like to point out that the legislation we are considering,
the Defense appropriations bill, is not a partisan bill. In fact, it
was voted out of committee last week by a vote of 27 to 3. This is not
a partisan bill, so why they should decide to hold this hostage is
beyond me.
All but three Democrats supported the defense spending measure in
committee last week. But, unfortunately--and defying logic--some
Democrats have publicly admitted to supporting the text of the bill
while vowing to do everything they could to keep it from advancing on
the floor of the Senate.
Just one example is the junior Senator from Connecticut, who hailed
the bill's passage--this is the Defense appropriations bill in
committee--through the committee as a ``victory for Connecticut''--I am
sure there was a press release to go along with that back home--only to
go on and say he would go along with the ill-fated strategy to vote no
to actually block the bill from being considered on the floor.
The American people are very smart, and they can identify hypocrisy
when they see it. When a Senator says, ``I am going to vote for the
bill in committee, but I am going to vote against it on the floor
because that is what my leadership tells me I have to do in order to
extract more spending and impose more debt on the American people in
future generations,'' the American people get it once it is pointed out
to them.
So this is all about gamesmanship. This is not about responsible
legislating, and it is not why the American people sent us here.
I can only hope, being the optimist that I am, that our colleagues on
the other side will reconsider this stated strategy of filibuster
summer. What a mistake that is. What an unsustainable position when
they have to go home over the Fourth of July and tell the veterans,
tell the Active-Duty military in their State: Yes, I voted to kill the
bill that would pay your salary and provide you the tools you need in
order to succeed in your commitment to keeping America safe.
I just don't know how you sustain that position.
So I would encourage our colleagues from across the aisle to remember
that filibuster summer is a bad idea and that it is not good for the
American people. It irresponsibly signals to our troops that some
Members of the Senate are not fully behind them.
So let's continue to working productively. We have done it on hard
pieces of legislation, most recently on the trade legislation we passed
out of the Senate with a strong bipartisan vote. Let's continue to work
together productively in a way that serves the American people and not
resort to the sort of political maneuvers that I don't think reflect
well on us and on the Senate as an institution but, more fundamentally,
undermine the men and women who wear the uniform of the U.S. military.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S4231]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Third Anniversary of DACA Program

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise to acknowledge the third
anniversary of the Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals--the DACA
Program--as many of my colleagues have over the past few days.
The DACA Program was created because our government faced an
impractical mandate to deport hundreds of thousands of undocumented
children who pose no risk to society. Congress, thus far, has been
unable to solve the problem. Despite the very good bipartisan efforts
that occurred in this body back in 2013, we have been unable to pass
any meaningful immigration reform. Why? Well, a group from the far
right in the House of Representatives oppose immigration reform at all
costs and have sort of tied Speaker Boehner into knots so he can't
bring anything to the floor.
So 3 years ago, with no choice, President Obama moved forward on his
own to shield children who were brought to this country through no
fault of their own. They were brought by their parents when they were
very young, most of them; children who have lived here for many years
and know no other country as their own, children who are in our school
system and dreaming of getting a college degree in America.
The President created DACA, a temporary program modeled on the DREAM
Act, which is a vital component of comprehensive immigration reform. As
I said, we couldn't get immigration reform, unfortunately. That would
have been the best way to go, and I am still hopeful that will happen
at some point in time. But doing what the President did was the humane
and practical thing to do because the House couldn't do anything. What
choice was there? Leave these kids here through no fault of their own
in total limbo? That was not the right thing to do. So we hope this is
a policy Congress will implement into law at some point, but right now,
of course, as I mentioned, the House is hog-tied.
In the 3 short years since its inception, the DACA Program has
deferred deportations for over one-half million young DREAMers. In New
York, nearly 34,000 have been approved for DACA. Of those 34,000, there
is a girl named Kirssy Martinez from New York City. Kirssy came to our
country from the Dominican Republic in 2002, and she attended high
school in New York City.
After graduating, Kirssy lived in the shadows, working small jobs
here and there as a waitress, a babysitter, whatever she could do to
make ends meet. She was a good student coming out of high school. She
even had a few scholarship offers but couldn't attend college because
she didn't have a green card and, moreover, she didn't have the means
to afford a college education.
In 2012, Kirssy was one of the first to sign up for DACA. With her
new temporary legal status, she was able to enroll in Bronx Community
College. She got loans to pay for her first semester. She had to drop
out once the loans ran out. She scraped together more funding from
TheDream.US scholarship that provides tuition assistance to DREAMers at
CUNY schools.
Now Kirssy is 26 years old. I met her at her graduation at Bronx
Community College. She was covaledictorian of her class with a perfect
4.0 average.
These are the kinds of kids we are talking about. They want to be
Americans. They want to get out of the shadows. They want to live
productive, full lives. They do not want a handout. They want to be
able to be on their own. That is what Kirssy did. I met her, and I was
so proud of her.
Kirssy has realized a DREAMers dream because of both her hard work
and the President's DACA Program, which helped bring her out of the
shadows. There are many more in New York and around the country just
like her.
The sad truth is that instead of harnessing the potential and the
contributions these young people could make, instead of welcoming them
as full-fledged members of our society, the Republican majority in the
House of Representatives voted to repeal the DACA Program. With these
votes, House Republicans have made it clear they want to deport these
DREAMers.
Many of the DREAMers have a sibling who may have been born in the
United States and is a citizen of the United States or a parent who may
have a green card. House Republicans have no qualms about tearing these
families apart. They have no qualms what it could cost us as a nation
to lose these young people.
If you look at the workforce in America, it is different than Europe
in that we do have enough young people who want to work to help support
those who are in retirement or on disability--but not if our House
Republicans have their way.
In my home State of New York, DREAMers like Kirssy are doing amazing
things. They are studying medicine, they are working at startup tech
companies and more. If Republicans in the House have their way, these
talented people would be putting their skills to use to compete against
us rather than working to make America stronger.
Like the millions who came here before them--like the ancestors of
our Presiding Officer and my ancestors--they came here because they
want to be Americans, not because they want to get a benefit, not
because they want to be a leach on society. They want to be a full-
fledged, productive member of society. Somehow these folks in the
House--and I don't even know if they know who these kids are--want to
stop that from happening.
As we recognize this anniversary, we should remember the real human
stories behind the DACA Program and think how our Nation could be made
better by sensible immigration reform now.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

National Alzheimer's and Brain Awareness Month

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise to ask my colleagues to join me in
recognizing June as National Alzheimer's and Brain Awareness Month.
Every 67 seconds someone in our country develops Alzheimer's disease.
It is the sixth leading cause of death in the United States. Yet it is
the only disease in the top 10 that cannot yet be prevented, cured or
slowed.
Of the 5.3 million Americans with Alzheimer's disease, 5.1 million
are 65 and older, accounting for 96 percent of the diagnosed
population. By 2050, the number of people 65 and older with Alzheimer's
disease may nearly triple from 5.1 million to an estimated 13.8 million
Americans. The disease will take the lives of an estimated 700,000
seniors in the United States this year, and that number is rapidly
rising.
While deaths from other major causes have decreased in this country,
deaths from Alzheimer's disease have increased significantly. Between
2000 and 2013, deaths attributed to Alzheimer's disease increased 71
percent, while deaths attributed to heart disease, the No. 1 cause of
death in the United States, decreased by 14 percent.
This devastating disease is also one of our country's most expensive
diseases. Nearly one in every five Medicare dollars is spent on people
with Alzheimer's and other dementias. Unless something is done, by 2050
it will be $1 out of every $3. We cannot afford to overlook Alzheimer's
disease. Both the human cost and the cost to our health care system are
simply too great. We must invest more in research to develop treatments
to prevent or delay the progression of Alzheimer's disease and
ultimately to find a cure.
Of all the statistics and data regarding Alzheimer's disease, perhaps
the most upsetting is the immense gap between the amount we spend on
Alzheimer's research and the cost of caring for those with Alzheimer's
disease.
In 2014, the total cost of Alzheimer's was $214 billion, including
$150 billion to Medicare and Medicaid. During that same year, the
National Institutes of Health invested only one-quarter of 1 percent of
that amount--$566 million--in Alzheimer's research. This year, cancer
research will be allocated an estimated $5.4 billion in Federal funds
and heart disease will get $1.2 billion,

[[Page S4232]]

while Alzheimer's and other dementias will receive a fraction of that,
at $586 million. Simply put, it is imperative we provide NIH with
robust and sustained funding, which will allow it to support
Alzheimer's research that is so desperately needed.
Let me make it clear. I strongly support the research dollars going
into cancer and would like to see more funds put into it. I strongly
support the amount of funds we are putting into heart disease and would
like to see more funds put in. I know there is bipartisan support in
this Congress to increase the pie that NIH has--the funds NIH has--
because we understand it advances the humanitarian need in our country
to find the answers to cures for diseases but also creates good jobs.
We need to dramatically increase the amount of resources that we make
available for Alzheimer's research.
We must also support innovative, evidence-based models to address the
needs of those currently living with Alzheimer's disease and their
family caregivers. I am proud to tell you about the Maximizing
Independence at Home--or MIND at Home Program--developed at Johns
Hopkins in my home State of Maryland.
In the MIND at Home Program, an interdisciplinary team provides home-
based assessments, care coordination and support to individuals with
Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, allowing them to remain in
their homes longer, improving their quality of life, and supporting
their family caregivers.
During an 18-month pilot project, the MIND at Home Program helped
participants stay safely in their homes for an average of 9\1/2\ months
longer than would have been otherwise possible, while also improving
their quality of life.
We have an opportunity to improve the lives of millions of Americans
suffering from Alzheimer's, and the lives of their family members, by
building on the success of programs such as MIND at Home. This June, in
honor of National Alzheimer's and Brain Awareness Month, let us pledge
to provide robust, sustained funding for NIH, so it can support much
needed research on this devastating disease, and let us pledge to
support innovative programs such as MIND at Home to improve the quality
of life of those currently living with Alzheimer's and their family
caregivers.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for
up to 15 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Climate Change

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

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

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

Actually, it is just really factual.
``[T]here's never been a moment where the climate is not changing,''
another candidate observed. ``The question is: What percent of that is
. . . due to human activity?''
Well, the links of climate change to human activity are something
that scientists have studied extraordinarily closely. According to the
leading scientific body on climate change, the best estimate is that
pretty much all of the recent rise was due to human activity. The lead
scientific organization says greenhouse gas emissions, along with human
activity, ``are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the
observed warming since the mid-20th century.'' And, by the way,
``extremely likely'' is defined in that document as 95 to 100 percent
certainty.
So this gaggle of Republican Presidential hopefuls is willing to take
the ``worse than 1 in 20'' bet that human activity is not the dominant
cause of recent climate change. Or, as another Republican candidate put
it, ``the conclusions you make from that are not conclusive''--whatever
that means.

[[Page S4233]]

Then, of course, there is this: ``I'm not a scientist.'' At least
three of the declared Republican candidates have used that line.
Imagine if Congress answered other policy questions that way. What is
your position on abortion? Oh, I am not a gynecologist. What should we
do about health care? Oh, I am not a medical doctor.
We are not expected to be experts. We are expected to listen to the
experts and to make conscientious, informed, and prudent decisions--
and, oh, are we failing that test.
There are even Republican candidates for President who in this
American century would abdicate American leadership on the climate
crisis. ``Is there anything the United States can do about it?'' one of
the Republican candidates asked. ``Clearly, no''--reducing greenhouse
gas emissions ``will have zero impact,'' he said, on climate change.
Another candidate said: ``A single nation acting alone can make no
difference at all.'' I would love to hear Winston Churchill and
Franklin Roosevelt conversing about whether America can make a
difference.
Last week the senior Senator from Oklahoma, whose skepticism about
climate change is well documented, was the keynote speaker at the
climate denial conference of a creepy outfit called the Heartland
Institute. Here is what he told them--and by the way, when I say
``creepy,'' they are the group that put up a billboard comparing
climate scientists to the Unabomber--pretty responsible stuff. ``If you
look at the Republican candidates,'' he assured the attendees at that
forum, ``they're all denying this stuff, with the exception of Lindsey
Graham. . . . They're all with the people in this room''--quite a room
to want to be with.
I am glad that our colleague from South Carolina, Senator Graham, has
called for reducing carbon pollution with smart probusiness policies.
He has lit a path for other Republican colleagues to follow, and he is
not the only one on this path. Prominent conservative thinkers and
former administration officials from Nixon, Reagan, and both Bush
administrations have voiced support for putting a fee on carbon
emissions. Prominent conservatives and libertarians think that we can
put a price on carbon, relieve taxes on profits and work, and come out
economically for the better. Even setting aside the environmental and
climate benefit, just economically, that is a win.
So I offered a carbon fee bill last week with our colleague Senator
Schatz, what one conservative called an ``olive limb''--doing better
than just an olive branch--to conservatives who are ready to address
this problem.
So Lindsey Graham has articulated one path. There is a different,
darker path. It is the path of obedience to fossil fuel interests. The
fossil fuel companies, their super PAC allies, and their front groups
swing a heavy financial club, and they want to herd Republican
candidates down the darker path. Americans for Prosperity, part of the
Koch brothers-backed political machine, plans on spending $900 million
in the 2016 election cycle--$900 million. Its president, Tim Phillips,
threatened publicly that any Republican candidate in the 2016
Presidential campaign who supported climate action ``would be at a
severe disadvantage in the Republican nomination process.'' Gee, what
might candidates conclude from that? And that is just one part of the
fossil fuel political machine.
So I ask myself: Why are there all of those preposterous statements
by the Republican Presidential candidates? The only conclusion I can
reach is to signal that very obedience. We are now at the stage in the
Republican Presidential primary where candidates caper and grovel
before the fossil fuel industry's political machine, hoping they will
be the chosen beneficiaries of fossil fuel election spending. Remember
that there is $900 million from just one group. It looks like that
earns the industry a lot of groveling and capering.
Eventually, the Republican Party is going to have to find its true
voice on climate change. It can't continue indefinitely as the
political arm of the fossil fuel industry in an environment in which 80
percent of Americans want climate action and a majority of young
Republicans think that climate denial is ignorant, out of touch or
crazy, according to the words they selected in the poll. Ultimately,
the Republican Party is going to have to find its true voice. Until
then, America is presented the unseemly spectacle of Republican
Presidential candidates fighting to have the best position on climate
change that money can buy.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Nuclear Agreement With Iran

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

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

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

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

Now, this is the former Deputy Director General of the International
Atomic Energy Administration, whom we hear overwhelmingly under the
proposed agreements saying this is the entity that will be responsible
for the verification of any potential agreement.
Well, his experience says that without understanding the
weaponization elements of Iran's program, you can't fully be able to do
that. He also warned that outsiders really can have no idea where and
how fast the mullahs could build a nuclear weapon unless they know what
Iranian engineers have done in the past.
As to Secretary Kerry's assertion yesterday that we know what their
program was--and he said it, as I read it, almost as unequivocal that
we know what their program was. Well, I get

[[Page S4234]]

concerned when I read the former Director of the CIA, Gen. Michael
Hayden, who has said not addressing the possible military dimensions
``creates an increased burden on verification if I don't have high
confidence in where the Iranians actually are, not such as fissile
material development, but in their weaponization program. . . . we do
have intelligence estimates, but they remain estimates.''
They remain estimates.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Climate Change

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, the facts are undeniable. Climate change
is real. It is caused by humans. It is happening now and it is
solvable.
One solution to climate change is putting a fair price on carbon
pollution. Last week, Senator Whitehouse and I introduced a bill, S.
1548, to do just that and to return all of the revenue to American
families and businesses.
I thank Senator Whitehouse for his leadership on this bill, but we
want a Republican dance partner. We want conservative leadership on
this great challenge of our time.
Climate change increases the severity and frequency of storms and
natural disasters. This is not only a humanitarian problem but also an
economic issue. A heat wave in Texas in 2011, for example, caused $5
billion in livestock and crop losses. Climate change makes events like
this 20 times more likely to occur today than in the

[[Page S4235]]

1960s. Climate change's impact on the economy is particularly damaging
because it creates so much uncertainty.
There is a role for the government here. The administration is doing
everything it can to reduce carbon pollution within the statutory
constraints of the Clean Air Act, but it will not get us to the
reductions we need. Congress needs to step in and legislate to get the
reductions we need to make sure we are protecting low-income and
working families and growing our economy.
Regulations like the Clean Power Plan and market mechanisms such as a
price on carbon are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they work
together. They are mutually reinforcing. If powerplants reduce
emissions under the Clean Power Plan, they will pay less in carbon
fees. Market mechanisms for reducing pollution work.
In the 1990s, President George H.W. Bush used cap and trade to reduce
emissions from sulfur dioxide in order to combat acid rain. The program
was successful in slashing emissions, which not only meant healthier
lakes and waterways but healthier communities. The health benefits for
humans linked to lower sulfur dioxide emissions were estimated at $50
billion annually by 2010.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. SCHATZ. Yes, I will be pleased to yield to the Senator from
California.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator, and I welcome his remarks. We are in
a space in the Senate where there are some people who still say climate
change isn't happening, even though, as the Senator and I know, 98, 99
percent of the scientists in this country say it is obvious.
I am also so pleased my friend is here today because he is talking
about cap and trade, and that leads us into my question. I will ask two
questions.
One question I have for the Senator from Hawaii is how he feels about
the Pope and the encyclical, where the Pope is basically stating it the
way it is, and it needs to be heard by everyone. I wonder how my friend
responded to that. Also, I wanted to make sure my friend knew in
California we have a cap-and-trade program, and I thought it was so
good that you reminded people that this was a creation by a Republican
President dealing with acid rain and it was so successful and the
public health benefits so outweighed the costs.
So I wanted to make sure my friend was aware we had this cap-and-
trade system in California that is working well. We balanced our budget
in large part because of this, and businesses like it. They liked the
certainty of it. Also, will the Senator respond to the issue of the
Pope entering into this debate.
Mr. SCHATZ. I thank the Senator from California.
Through the Chair, I will answer the first question.
First, when it comes to the Pope's encyclical, it seems to me that he
is displaying the moral leadership that is going to be necessary in all
sectors--in the private sector, in the public sector, among Democrats,
Republicans, Independents. People across the planet are starting to
understand the magnitude of the climate challenge.
One of the reasons I have been coming to the floor so frequently is
not to lambaste the other party, but rather to encourage that there be
conservative leadership in this space. There is certainly progressive
leadership in this space. There is increasingly corporate leadership.
There is leadership in the Department of Defense, in the scientific
community. But what we really need is for conservatives to step up and
to acknowledge the reality of this problem and propose their own set of
solutions.
They may disagree with a carbon fee or a cap-and-trade program or the
President's Clean Power Plan. But let's have that debate out in the
open. Come down and beat up on our bill or beat up on the President's
proposal. That is fine. But we need to have this great debate in this
great Chamber because this is one of the greatest challenges of our
time.
To the Senator's second question, talking a little bit about how cap
and trade has worked in California but also how market-based mechanisms
have worked all over North America and across the planet, the Senator
is right. There is a cap-and-trade program in California, and the
economy has continued to improve. The State's fiscal situation has
continued to improve.
We have the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative. We have tripled clean
energy in a very short period of time, all while unemployment has gone
down. In 2008, British Columbia became the first and only jurisdiction
in North America with an economy-wide price on carbon emissions. Seven
years later, evidence shows that even going it alone, British Columbia
was able to reduce petroleum consumption more than the rest of Canada
and without any negative impact on growth.
So the Senator from California is right. We can do this and grow our
economy. But we are going to need bipartisan leadership. Market
mechanisms are one of the most straightforward solutions to climate
change. They have growing support across the ideological spectrum. The
carbon fee in our bill is predictable. It can start right away. There
is no new government program to administer or to run and no need for
complex financial transactions or trading.
It is simple and relatively easy to administer, and it gets the
reductions that we need: an estimated 40 percent of greenhouse gas
emissions by the year 2030. The bill, importantly, is revenue neutral.
The original carbon fee legislation poured back the new revenue into a
bunch of goodies that I liked in terms of dealing with the challenge of
climate change. But we understand that if we are going to get
Republican support, this needs to be revenue neutral or close to it,
and we need to use the revenue to ameliorate the challenges that are
going to occur as we transition into a clean energy economy.
It also lowers corporate tax rates, which will make our Tax Code more
competitive with other countries. But reducing carbon emissions and
growing our economy ought to go hand in hand. This bill lays out a
clear framework for how to accomplish that. Climate change demands
leadership from both progressives and conservatives. A price on carbon
is a market-based solution that can appeal to people of multiple
ideologies but share a common goal of solving one of the great
challenges of our time.
In the tradition of Margaret Thatcher and Barry Goldwater, we need
conservatives to embrace their own market-based solutions to our
climate challenge. There is nothing conservative about ignoring the
collective knowledge of the scientific establishment. There is nothing
conservative about ignoring the warnings from our Department of
Defense. There is nothing conservative about shirking our
responsibility for global leadership. There is nothing conservative
about conducting a dangerous experiment on the only planet that we
have.
So we have no desire for this to continue to be an issue where only
one party is on the floor talking about it. Let's have the argument
about what the right solution set ought to be. But let's have it out in
the open, and let's have it together.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.

EPA Water Rule

Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, the EPA recently released its final water
rule, claiming much greater power for the administration to oversee the
land use decisions of homeowners, small businesses, and family farms
throughout our country. This mandate is full of problems, and the
American people are being sold a false bill of goods.
Just look at the potential impact to my home State of Arkansas. As
you can see, the entire State will come under this jurisdiction. The
red on this map, compiled by Agriculture's Waters of the United States
Mapping Initiative, highlights the extent to which this EPA rule would
impact Arkansas. As you can see, the Obama administration wants to give
bureaucrats in Washington control of almost all of the water in
Arkansas. They are deceiving the American people in order to justify
this power grab. First, they imply that unless Washington is in
control, water is simply not protected.
This is not true. Clean water protection involves our local
communities. Private land owners, conservation districts, States, and
local communities protect non-Federal waters all of the time. Second,
the Agency claims this rule is designed to protect drinking water.

[[Page S4236]]

Again, this is an attempt to scare the American people. It is
dishonest.
We all want to protect our water resources, and clean drinking water
is certainly a priority. I support the Safe Drinking Water Act. For
more than 40 years the Safe Drinking Water Act has encouraged Federal-
State cooperation in improving safe drinking water. That work has made
tremendous progress, which we can all be proud of. This law has been
strongly supported by both Republicans and Democrats. It has been
reauthorized and extended by Republican-controlled Congresses, and it
will continue to improve safe drinking water whether or not this
Federal power grab continues.
This administration says one thing about safe drinking water, and
then it does another. For example, in 2013 and 2014, the Obama
administration cut funding for the Safe Drinking Water Grant Program.
This program, which is a Federal-State partnership, does far more to
protect safe drinking water than anything in the EPA's new power grab.
Third, we hear rhetoric about rivers catching on fire and toxic
pollution. Once again, this is an attempt to scare the American people.
Major rivers will continue to receive Federal and State protection just
as they have for decades. Isolated non-navigable waters will continue
to be protected by State and local efforts as they are now. Let's not
forget that farmers and landowners care about clean water.
Northeast Arkansas farmer Joe Christian told the Jonesboro Sun after
the EPA finalized the rule: I am not going to do something detrimental
to the land I work and live on.
There is no greater environmentalist than a farmer. For the past
year, Arkansas farmers and ranchers have shared with me their concerns
over this EPA overreach. I want to share some of the comments that I
recently received. Fred in Trumann wrote:

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

Rodney in Lonsdale sent me an email saying:

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

These frustrations are the result of an agency that often abuses its
authority, creating unnecessary and costly mandates. It is not just
Arkansans. Across the country, people are sounding the alarm on this
power grab.
``Extreme'' and ``unlawful'' are two words the American Farm Bureau
used to describe the rule. An analysis of the finalized rule by the
organization determined that the ambiguity of the rule will give the
Agency ``broad discretion to identify waters and to limit the scope of
most of the exclusions.'' The good news is that we have a bipartisan
agreement that this EPA rule is a problem.
After EPA finalized this rule, the Wall Street Journal published an
editorial calling this rule by EPA an ``amphibious attack'' and urged
Congress to overturn the rule and force ``Members to show whose side
they're on--the average landowners or the Washington water police.''
That is why I joined the Senate's efforts to protect property owners
and keep Washington's hands off of private lands. The Federal Water
Quality Protection Act safeguards Americans from this overreach. It
sends EPA back to the drawing board to craft a proposal that encourages
true cooperation. It will keep the hands of Washington's politicians
out of the decisions that have been made in the States and local
communities for generations.
Under this modest, bipartisan legislation, the EPA will be able to
protect Federal waters without expanding its power. I appreciate
Senator Barrasso, the bill's author, for his continued leadership in
holding EPA accountable. Last week, my colleagues and I who serve on
the Environment and Public Works Committee moved this legislation
forward. This is a step in the right direction to protecting the rights
of landowners while protecting our Nation's waters.
I look forward to supporting this commonsense legislation on the
Senate floor and encouraging my colleagues to do the same. Congress
must build on the progress that we have made toward better water
quality. We can do this best by protecting the role of States, local
communities, and private citizens to be a part of the process.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

Transition to Independence Act

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a bill I will be
introducing, the Transition to Independence Act.
The bill is a Medicaid demonstration program that will give
incentives to States to achieve more integrated employment for people
with disabilities.
The Federal Government funds a hodge podge of programs that provide
supports for people with disabilities.
However, the largest of all programs providing supports for people
with disabilities, the Medicaid program, could do much more to drive
better outcomes.
The Medicaid program provides critical supports for people with
disabilities including primary health care and home and community-based
care.
This bill is unique in that it uses the resources of the Medicaid
program to drive better outcomes for people with disabilities.
Our public policy encourages people with disabilities to participate
in society, to live in the community and to have integrated employment.
But what does the government do to encourage that outcome?
What does government do to insure that all people with disabilities
have the opportunity to achieve their maximum participation?
I would argue, not enough.
The program that is the largest funder of supports for people with
disabilities is Medicaid.
Unfortunately, Medicaid funding to States is in no way tied to
producing better outcomes.
Now I know we cannot just snap our fingers and make it so.
The Federal Government cannot just order the States to do better.
The Federal Government needs to provide States the right incentives
to achieve better outcomes.
That is the goal of the Transition to Independence Act.
This bill creates a 5-year, 10-State Medicaid demonstration program.
States participating in the demonstration program will receive
Medicaid bonus payments for meeting achievement targets for individual
integrated employment.
Simply stated, as States move people with disabilities to integrated
settings, they get more money.
States can also achieve additional funding for agreeing to give up
new congregate placements.
States can achieve additional funding for ending vocation
rehabilitation for congregate settings.
States can achieve additional funding for taking actions that will
grow the workforce serving people with disabilities.
Finally, States can achieve additional funding for taking steps to
improve interagency collaboration.
Too much of disability policy occurs in isolated silos where people
in charge of policy don't talk to each other.
There is health services, long-term supports, housing, education and
workforce training, and transportation available to people with
disabilities all run by people who aren't working together to maximize
the outcome for the individual.
Now it is legitimate to ask: why can't States take these policy steps
today?
They can take some actions of course.
But they have a significant financial incentive not to take these
actions.
It will take a significant investment of resources for a State to
achieve better outcomes for people with disabilities.
If a State wants to improve outcomes, it needs to invest in providing
the supports necessary to help people with disabilities participate
more fully in the community.
In the end, moving people with disabilities from more expensive
congregate settings to more self-sufficient, integrated settings is
better for the individual and ultimately better for the taxpayer
because it will require less intensive, less expensive supports.
But under Medicaid, when a State makes that investment, it has to
give

[[Page S4237]]

half or more of the savings achieved back to the Federal Government.
Again, that is a serious disincentive for the States.
Basically, the bonuses I am proposing in this bill allow the States
to keep the savings they achieve.
It is my intention that this bill be essentially budget neutral to
the Federal taxpayer while giving States a real incentive to achieve
better outcomes.
We can build better supports for people with disabilities.
The term often used is a ``lifespan benefit.''
I believe that creation of a lifespan benefit, where people with
disabilities receive coordinated, multidisciplinary support to achieve
the maximum functional outcomes possible begins with the Medicaid
program.
It is my intention to prove that through this demonstration bill.
I have talked to scores of people with disabilities and their
families and they want to work a real job that pays a fair wage.
Agencies that provide these services are committed to helping them
find real jobs.
It is time to change Medicaid incentives to encourage and reward
that.
Last week, a constituent of mine from Dubuque, Rose Carroll, visited
my office with the Autistic Self Advocacy Network.
Rose is currently in college working on a degree in math.
All Rose wants is to know that she will have the supports available
to her when she needs them so that she can do all she can to
participate in her community.
That is exactly what this bill intends to do.
It will demonstrate that States, when given the right incentives,
will do all they can to make sure Rose has those supports.
Back home, my friend Chris Sparks is the Executive Director of
Exceptional Persons Incorporated in Waterloo, IA.
Chris and his staff go out into the community every day to provide
direct support services for people with disabilities.
These workers provide a necessary service in order to assist people
with significant intellectual and developmental disabilities to have
jobs in their community.
But it is a struggle every day for Chris to find workers, to train
them and retain them.
This bill will provide States the incentives to grow the workforce to
make it easier for people like Chris Sparks to go out and provide
services that allow individuals with disabilities to achieve
independence.
The bill I introduce today has the support of the American
Association of People with Disabilities, the American Association on
Health and Disability, Autism Speaks, the Autistic Self Advocacy
Network, the Muscular Dystrophy Association, the National Adult Day
Services Association, the National Association of State Directors of
Developmental Disabilities Services, the National Association of States
United for Aging and Disabilities, and the National Down Syndrome
Congress.
The bill also has the support of the American Network of Community
Options and Resources including Iowa members: Christian Opportunity
Center, Hope Haven, Opportunity Village, Hills & Dales, New Hope
Village, and Exceptional Persons Incorporated.
In their advisory role to Congress, the National Council on
Disability provided technical assistance on the bill.
This is an opportunity for us to say that outcomes matter, for us to
further a conversation about setting the goal of maximum participation
and using all our tools to meet it.
I look forward to working with my colleagues and others to move this
legislation forward in the months to come.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott). The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, are we in the parliamentary procedure to
proceed to speak?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.

Papal Encyclical on the Environment

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, tomorrow, Pope Francis will release a
papal encyclical on the environment. It is basically a letter to all
Catholics about high-priority issues, and he has chosen the
environment.

=========================== NOTE ===========================

On page S4237, June 17, 2015, in the middle column, the
following language appears: The PRESIDING OFFICER. Mr. President,
tomorrow, . . .

The online Record has been corrected to read: Mr. NELSON. Mr.
President, tomorrow, . . .

========================= END NOTE =========================

Some might think the Pope is straying outside of his expertise by
discussing environmental issues and climate change as the expected
encyclical is revealed, but the Pope actually has more of a scientific
background than many Members of Congress because the Pope was trained
as a chemist before he entered seminary. And, as we have seen over the
course of his first 2 years as head of the Catholic Church, Pope
Francis is particularly committed to addressing issues that affect the
poor.
According to recent news reports, the Pope's encyclical will
emphasize the moral imperative that we as a global community face in
addressing climate change. He calls every person across all faiths to
come together to address the global deterioration of our common home.
This stewardship case is a shared common truth for all people--the
faith community and all.
Many of us have spoken on this floor about climate change and the
resulting sea level rise. The President has spoken about it numerous
times recently, and he visited the Florida Everglades in my State
recently and made a similar case for the urgent need to take action on
climate change and sea level rise.
Taking care of treasured places such as the Everglades isn't just
about conservation, it is about survival.
Millions of people in South Florida depend on the Everglades as the
source, as that water flows south from upper central Florida and
recharges the aquifers. It is a vital source of drinking water. It is a
vital source no one can live without. But drinking water wells in South
Florida are already being compromised by saltwater intrusion through
the porous limestone foundation of our State.
We had a hearing of our commerce committee in Miami Beach, which is
ground zero. A NASA scientist testified that over the last 40 years,
measurements--not forecasts, not projections; measurements--over the
last 40 years, the sea level has risen 8 inches in South Florida.
What happens when that rises--and, of course, that starts to inundate
the porous limestone, which holds the freshwater, which supports the
foundation of the peninsula of Florida. You can't do as the Dutch have
done--build a dike around it--because the water will seep right
underneath your dike into the porous limestone.
So we need to take a hard look at what can be done--and do it soon--
to get ready for the impacts of climate change in the future, to stop
pumping carbon dioxide, which is the main greenhouse gas, into the
atmosphere.
There are a lot of good ideas out there that could protect
communities from climate change, and there are a lot of good ideas out
there that could help folks pay their bills. For example, my colleague
from Rhode Island, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, has proposed a plan to
place a carbon fee or a dollar fee per ton of carbon emissions and then
use that money to lower everybody's tax rate, both corporate and
individual. Let it be revenue neutral. It is a fee on carbon, and the
marketplace will then kick in, making it less desirable to put those
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, particularly carbon dioxide.
In the last Congress, Senator Boxer proposed a similar idea of
setting a carbon pollution fee. Her bill would have directed that new
revenue toward helping communities adopt climate resiliency measures as
well as providing a monthly rebate to U.S. households.
Well, maybe we don't have the magic formula yet, but we ought to be
able to agree that lowering tax rates for businesses and individuals
would be a good thing. But if you are going to do that, you have to
have the revenue to pay for it. In other words, you have to have the
revenue to replace the revenue that is there now if you lower the tax
rates.

If you set a price on carbon emissions, it could generate anywhere
from $1 trillion to $2 trillion over a decade. That revenue can put
money back into the pockets of hard-working people by virtue of
lowering their tax rates.
Some people might think this is a political issue that Big Business
is unanimously opposed to. When I first heard it, that is what I
thought would be the case. But, lo and behold, that is not the case. On
June 1, six major oil and gas companies, including Shell, signed a
joint letter to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

[[Page S4238]]

Change in support of establishing a carbon pricing system. What these
giant corporations understand is that something must be done to reduce
carbon emissions, and if they do not pursue a carbon fee or something
like it, they are going to face what they do not want to face, which is
EPA regulation and lawsuits and additional public scrutiny over their
contribution to pollution.
In their letter, these CEOs write: ``As major companies from the oil
and gas sector, we recognize both the importance of climate challenge
and the importance of energy to human life and well-being.''
If these corporate giants can acknowledge the seriousness and urgency
of climate change, then it just doesn't make sense that we can't get
over this political hangup about a fee--call it a tax--on carbon and
address it here in the Senate.
Many of my colleagues are concerned and frustrated, especially if
they live in a State like mine where the sea level is rising. The mayor
of Miami Beach cut a TV campaign advertisement in a kayak at seasonal
high tide on Alton Road in Miami Beach. Is it any wonder we feel like
the canary in the coal mine? So we are sounding the alarm and echoing
the warning of scientists, echoing the warning of faith leaders--now
the Pope is going to speak tomorrow in his encyclical--and we are
echoing the warnings of Americans who are already experiencing real
consequences of what is happening with the climate. The State of
Florida is the literal canary in the coal mine. The State of Florida is
ground zero for all of this that is happening.
This year is going to mark 10 years since Hurricane Katrina, and just
last month experts at CBO estimated that with climate change, hurricane
damage will skyrocket over the next 60 years. Why? Because as the Earth
heats up--when the Sun rays reflect off the Earth and reflect back into
space, if the greenhouse gases are there, they act as a shield, and
that traps the heat. Where does 90 percent of the heat go? It goes into
the world's oceans. The hotter the water, the more fuel for a more
ferocious hurricane. Floods, droughts, heat waves, sea level rise,
wildfires, melting sea ice--these are costly and deadly consequences.
Regardless of what it takes--the science, the economics, the
corporate executives, the moral imperative, and the Pope--we must call
attention to the problem. Let's not suffer the same fate as other
canaries in the coal mines. I encourage all of our colleagues to look
at this issue anew. Look at it with an eye toward confronting the
challenge and being good stewards of Earth's bounty that we are all
blessed to have.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to speak a few moments as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Congratulating the Golden State Warriors

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

The Economy

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about
the changing nature of our economy. I come to talk about a part of our
economy that I don't think most folks in this Chamber understand. It
goes by many names. It is called the sharing economy, the on-demand
economy, the gig economy, the 1099 economy. There is a lot of
discussion, actually, in some circles about exactly what to call this
changing nature of our economy, but there is no dispute that it
represents a new dynamic and growing part of our American economy.
It used to be that when you were introduced to someone, one of the
first questions asked was, Where do you work? Today, particularly for
the 80-plus million millennials who make up the largest age cohort in
our society, the more appropriate question to ask is, What are you
working on? That is because the American workforce is increasingly made
up of freelancers, independent contractors, and the self-employed. Yet
Washington mostly has remained on the sidelines as our economy, the
workforce, and the workplace have undergone what may be the most
dramatic transformation literally in decades.

[[Page S4239]]

By my count, as folks announced yesterday, almost 25 people are
running for President in 2016. Frankly, I find it remarkable that none
of them in either party are even talking about these fundamental
changes in how, when, and where Americans are currently working
because, whether by economic necessity or by choice, one-third or more
of the American workers now find themselves piecing together two,
three, or more on-demand opportunities to make a living. As I said
earlier, it is called the sharing economy, the on-demand economy, or
the gig economy. It includes, as I mentioned earlier as well, a lot of
young and--at least they think so--invincible millennials, 80 million-
strong, who began entering the workforce in the year 2000 and
afterward.
The good news about this generation is it is the best educated, the
most diverse and tolerant, the most technologically adept, and the most
comfortable with disruptive change of any generation America has seen.
And that is good. Most millennials grew up in the glow of a computer
monitor. Since childhood, most have maintained an online identity and
network in real time with friends. Members of this generation can, if
they choose, graduate from a college or university without ever
stepping foot on its campus. Armed with a tablet or smart phone, they
can successfully work for an employer without ever sitting at a desk
from 9 to 5. But it is not just the millennials who are pushing the
envelope in how, when, and where people work. It also includes many
middle-aged professionals, unexpectedly downsized at midcareer. It
includes baby boomers--folks from my generation and a number of my
college classmates--who have been hit with a premature end to what they
thought before the recession was a solid career. Frankly, it also
includes a lot of folks for whom working multiple jobs at the same time
is nothing new. They call it survival, and it hasn't gotten any easier.
Yet, here in Washington, too few policymakers are thinking creatively
about ways to provide more Americans with more footholds into this new
world of on-demand or freelance work.
In addition, today we have a whole set of new online platforms,
companies that didn't even exist 5 years ago, such as Airbnb, Uber,
TaskRabbit, and Etsy. Think about Airbnb alone--it already has more
rooms available than Marriott. These platforms match supply and demand
for things people never even thought about monetizing before--a room, a
ride, a specific skill, even the whole notion of free time. But many of
the business models in this on-demand economy are built upon the
premise that workers are independent contractors, not employees. This
means that employers can end the relationship at any time. Much of the
work is project-based. Contracts and clients can dry up, and it is
tougher to create new ones without an office to go to. It also means
employers do not have to pay costs or contribute to health insurance or
retirement. They also particularly don't pay a share of unemployment or
workers' compensation.
The whole notion of the social safety net and social contract between
the employer and the worker has totally changed. If we think back to my
parents' generation 40 years ago--I think about my father. He didn't
make a lot of money but knew that he would get benefits, that when he
retired, he would get a pension. That changed in my generation, the
baby boomers. You didn't work for the same place. You moved around to a
few different jobs. We moved into what I would call the 401(k)
generation, defined benefits. We moved to defined contribution.
The fact is, today these on-demand workers, even if they are doing
relatively well, exist on a high wire with no social safety net beneath
them. That may work for many of them when times are going well--until
the day they aren't. That is why ultimately, when things go wrong for
this new gig economy, workers without any safety net, without any
unemployment, without any workmen's comp, could fall and ultimately end
up on the taxpayers' dime.
That is why Washington needs to catch up and start asking some tough
policy questions--but also with the recognition that with the growth in
this part of the economy, Washington can't impose a solution.
First, the biggest challenge may be this fundamental change in the
employer-employee relationship. Are there other options for providing a
safety net of basic benefits for workers who are not connected to a
traditional full-time employer? Who should administer it? Should it be
opt-in or opt-out? We could look to the health care exchanges as a
public-private model now--in many cases--that they largely appear to be
working. Could we think about an unemployment or workmen's comp
exchange that workers and employers could work with?
We might borrow the idea of the hour bank used by the traditional
trade unions for 60 years. A carpenter would move from one contractor
to another, committing a little bit of resources, the employer
committing resources, but it was administered by a trusted third party.
Other countries--primarily in the EU--are experimenting with worker-
administered pools. Freelancers put in a certain amount of income based
on the income they would need to replace if they got sick or injured,
and they collect it if they are sidelined for more than a month.
Part of a solution might even be consumer-driven. What if customers
could designate a portion of their payments to Uber or Airbnb into a
designated fund that helps support workers--a social insurance fund?
There may be other public-private models out there, and they deserve a
look, too.
Second, this is too important to leave to the courts. While
litigation is underway about whether on-demand workers are independent
contractors or employees, we cannot and must not leave this to the
courts alone. We learned just today of a ruling from California labor
regulators--a ruling that is expected to be challenged. California
labor regulators have determined that Uber drivers are to be considered
employees and not independent contractors. This ruling demonstrates yet
again why Federal policymakers need to reexamine the whole notion of
20th-century definitions and employment classifications when we are
thinking about a 21st-century workforce.
As I mentioned, as many as one-third of American workers are
participating in some aspect of this on-demand economy. We have a
responsibility to provide clarity and predictability instead of
allowing inconsistency as these issues are litigated on a case-by-case,
State-by-State basis.
Third, the Federal Government needs to become much more nimble.
Frankly, folks on both sides of the aisle would acknowledge that the
Federal Government operates at less than dial-up speed. We need better
data about how many people are a part of the gig and sharing economies.
At the request of Senators Murray and Gillibrand, the GAO reported
last month that the Department of Labor has not been tasked with a
deep-dive on workforce data in more than 10 years. Better data would
tell us a lot about who is working in this sharing economy and what
characteristics they share. Better data would result in better policy.
As Federal policymakers, we also need to recommit to extending
broadband to underserved and unserved regions. You can't be linked in
if you don't have a link.
In addition, we should streamline the hodgepodge of Federal programs
we have set up to support innovators and entrepreneurs. These programs
are scattered across dozens of Federal agencies, and they exist in a
budgetary cycle of feast or famine.
We cannot ignore the opportunity costs of this generation's combined
$1.2 trillion in student debt. It is limiting options, opportunities,
and economic mobility for an entire generation.
Finally, this millennial generation is beginning to fuel a tremendous
shift in one of the most traditional anchors of America's economy, and
we need to, quite honestly, recognize and respond to it. Younger
Americans are making it clear that in many cases they prefer sharing
and renting over ownership.
I was talking to Brad Chesky, the CEO of Airbnb, the other day. As I
mentioned, Airbnb already provides more rooms than Marriott, and this
is a company that didn't even exist 5 years ago. The CEO offered this
comparison: His parents' generation--my generation--defined the idea of
success

[[Page S4240]]

in America as owning a nice house, having two cars, putting your kids
through college, and maybe, just maybe, if you did well, getting a
little house at the beach or on the lake. But he says the hallmarks of
success for this millennial generation are much more different. Younger
people want control of their data and online reputations. They don't
necessarily aspire to own things such as cars or houses; they want to
collect cool experiences, which they can best document and share
online.
I ask all my colleagues, the next time you are at a townhall, ask
your audience: Would you rather have a home mortgage deduction or a
direct credit against your student debt? It doesn't matter what the age
group is, 90 percent overall will say: Give me that credit on my
student debt rather than on a home mortgage deduction.
Think about this. As policymakers, this generational move away from
ownership and toward sharing and renting could have huge impacts for
every level of government. That is because we currently use our Tax
Code to reward ownership of everything from homes, to vehicles, to
factories. Property taxes are how State and local governments pay for
public schools, public health, and public safety. If we have an economy
increasingly built on sharing and renting and not ownership, that could
have tremendous ramifications.
I mentioned that 5 years ago no one had even heard of Airbnb or Uber.
And while we don't know what the disruptive technology of tomorrow
might look like, we know developments such as driverless cars, same-day
drone deliveries, and 3-D printing are right around the corner. Some
version is here to stay. As policymakers, we need to ask the right
questions, discuss the appropriate rules of the road, and know when we
need to get out of the way. Instead of trying to make this new economy
look like the old, Washington should encourage more of this innovation,
and we need to work to create more opportunities and more upward
economic mobility for everybody.
I, for one, look forward to continuing this discussion today and in
the weeks to come.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1911, as Modified

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

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

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

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

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

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

(a) Report on Assessment of Definition and Policy.--Not
later than March 15, 2016, the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to the congressional defense committees and the
President pro tempore of the Senate a report setting forth an
assessment, obtained by the Secretary for purposes of the
report, on the definition used by the Department of Defense
for and the policy of the Department regarding software
maintenance, particularly with

[[Page S4241]]

respect to the totality of the term ``software sustainment''
in the definition of ``depot-level maintenance and repair''
under section 2460 of title 10, United States Code.
(b) Independent Assessment.--The assessment obtained for
purposes of subsection (a) shall be conducted by a federally
funded research and development center (FFRDC), or another
appropriate independent entity with expertise in matters
described in subsection (a), selected by the Secretary for
purposes of the assessment.
(c) Elements.--
(1) In general.--The assessment obtained for purposes of
subsection (a) shall address, with respect to software and
weapon systems of the Department of Defense (including space
systems), each of the following:
(A) Fiscal ramifications of current programs with regard to
the size, scope, and cost of software to the program's
overall budget, including embedded and support software,
percentage of weapon systems' functionality controlled by
software, and reliance on proprietary data, processes, and
components.
(B) Legal status of the Department in regards to adhering
to section 2464(a)(1) of such title with respect to ensuring
a ready and controlled source of maintenance and sustainment
on software for its weapon systems.
(C) Operational risks and reduction to materiel readiness
of current Department weapon systems related to software
costs, delays, re-work, integration and functional testing,
defects, and documentation errors.
(D) Other matters as identified by the Secretary.
(2) Additional matters.--For each of subparagraphs (A)
through (C) of paragraph (1), the assessment obtained for
purposes of subsection (a) shall include review and analysis
regarding sole-source contracts, range of competition, rights
in technical data, public and private capabilities,
integration lab initial costs and sustaining operations, and
total obligation authority costs of software, disaggregated
by armed service, for the Department.
(d) Department of Defense Support.--The Secretary of
Defense shall provide the independent entity described in
subsection (b)with timely access to appropriate information,
data, resources, and analysis so that the entity may conduct
a thorough and independent assessment as required under such
subsection.

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

Nuclear Agreement with Iran

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

[[Page S4242]]

hospitals or roads. I think they would go into the activity you just
described. But this conversation was limited to the statement
attributed to him yesterday. I think all of us should be very attuned
to what is going on with these negotiations, as it is the most
important decision any administration will make probably in modern
history. The consequences of a bad deal are enormous. You could start a
nuclear arms race in the Mideast. At the end of the day, the behavior
of the Iranians, apart from their nuclear ambitions, is at best
disturbing and should be, in my view, part of any negotiating package.
But we are where we are, and I am glad to hear from the Secretary
himself that possible military dimensions have to be fully explored and
understood before you move forward with an agreement.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
notwithstanding Rule XXII, the time until 4 p.m. today be equally
divided between the managers or their designees; that at 4 p.m. all
post-cloture time be expired; further, that if cloture is invoked on
H.R. 1735, that the time count as if it was invoked at 10 p.m. tonight
and that the mandatory quorum call with respect to this cloture motion
be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to
speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Tree Street Youth

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I come to the Senate floor with some
good news from my home State of Maine. World Refugee Day is this
Saturday, and I would like to highlight an organization that sprung up
spontaneously in one of our Maine cities that is really making a
difference in the lives of young people, particularly young refugees
from Somalia, Sudan, and other African countries, helping them to
expand their own horizons.
As the roots of our refugee and immigrant population continue to grow
stronger in Maine and in the process strengthen our communities, a
group called Tree Street Youth is helping to nurture that growth one
student at a time. I have visited the Tree Street Youth, and it is an
amazing program.
Maine's history, like the rest of America, is inexorably linked to
immigration. With the exception of our native tribes, we are all from
somewhere else originally. It began with European immigrants from
England, Scotland, and Ireland. People with French heritage came down
from Canada, and Swedes settled in northern Aroostook County in Maine.
African Americans were brought here against their will, but they became
part of the stock of this country. For years, immigrants in Maine found
work in mills, farms, and fields, and now their descendants are our
leaders--business leaders, political leaders, our neighbors, our
friends, and our family.
Just as previous waves of immigrants have come to Maine in search of
a better life for themselves and their children, newer immigrants--
including refugees, asylees, and asylum seekers from Somalia, South
Sudan, and several central African countries--are making new homes in
Maine and making Maine more diverse, more dynamic, and a better place
in the process.
I think it is important to point out that these refugees are people
we have, in effect, invited to come to this country because the
conditions in their former countries were so unstable or because they
feared persecution. These people are not illegal immigrants. They are
people, and they are not illegal aliens. They are people here under a
legal process. They are looking for a new start, and they are willing
to work hard, as we learned in Maine. But anyone who finds themselves
in an entirely new and unfamiliar situation--in a situation where they
may not be familiar with the language--can always use some help and
support, and groups such as the Tree Street Youth in Lewiston are so
important and can have such a huge impact because they smooth the
transition and help promote cooperation and understanding within the
community and particularly the transition of young people.

This remarkable organization was founded in 2011 by two former Bates
College students located in the city of Lewiston--Julia Sleeper and Kim
Sullivan. They recognized the need for such a group--for such a
facility. Tree Street Youth is dedicated to supporting young people in
the Lewiston-Auburn area through academics, the arts, and athletics.
The organization, which originally grew out of a simple after-school
homework help program, now provides local youth with a safe space to
promote healthy physical, social, emotional, and academic development.
Through its flourishing arts, college prep, and job-training
programs, Tree Street is not only giving young people the tools,
support, and confidence they need to succeed, but it is also helping to
bring all students from all backgrounds in the city of Lewiston
together.
Tree Street Youth has proven to be a tremendous resource in Lewiston
and Auburn, particularly for young people from immigrant families. The
support services and sense of community that is provided there empowers
these young people to be independent and productive members of society.
While integrating into the community can be difficult for recent
immigrants, refugees, and their families, the Tree Street experience
helps to connect young people to their peers and to the community as a
whole. This is a two-way street of understanding that helps bring our
communities together.
For example, Tree Street Youth had an annual banquet this past May,
and it was, I am told, a fun and emotional event and a showcase that
allowed the Tree Street students to share some of their talents with
the Lewiston-Auburn community. I am told that after students gave a
variety of inspiring poetry readings, dance, and other performances
about their experiences, it was hard to find a dry eye in the house.
That really speaks to the life-changing power that this organization
has brought to our community.
Just as Tree Street Youth improves young lives, these young people
can in turn improve Maine and America. We need motivated, talented, and
creative people from all backgrounds if we are going to keep pace with
the rest of the world. We need students like Muna Muhammad, whom I met
here just a few weeks ago when she represented Maine in the Senate
Youth Leadership Program. Muna, whose family is from Somalia, is the
president of her class at Lewiston High School, serves as a student
representative on the Lewiston school committee, is involved in her
school's speech, mock trial, and civil rights teams, and has a long
list of other accomplishments. They highlight her remarkable leadership
qualities, which radiate when you meet her.
This is what America is all about. It is about families from around
the world finding a new start, bringing with them new perspectives, new
ideas, and new hope for the future. It is the mainspring of the
American experience. It is about a melting pot of peoples, cultures,
and ideas that create a tapestry that is much stronger than any single
thread.
Welcoming new people and cultures hasn't always been easy, and it is
not easy. Sometimes our differences are more immediately apparent than
our similarities, but over the years, immigrants and refugees have
proven to be an irreplaceable part--the essential part--of who America
is.
This wonderful organization started spontaneously in one of our great
cities of Maine. Tree Street Youth has proven that support and
community engagement can help ease that transition and

[[Page S4243]]

create a brighter future for those students, for Maine, and for our
entire country. That is good news for Maine and good news for the
United States.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

PORTS Act

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

King v. Burwell Decision

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, people across the country are eagerly
anticipating the Supreme Court's decision in

[[Page S4244]]

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

Amendment No. 1911, as Further Modified

Earlier today, I made a motion that was incomplete, and I wish to
correct it, having to do with a drafting error.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Hatch amendment No.
1911 be further modified to address a drafting error.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment, as further modified, is as follows:

[[Page S4245]]

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

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

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

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

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

Mr. INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. President.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, shortly we will have a vote. I would like
to say a few words about the legislation before we do. How much time is
remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. About 13 minutes remains.
Mr. McCAIN. I say to my colleagues, this Defense Authorization Act is
a reform bill. I repeat: It is a reform bill--a reform bill that will
enable our military to rise to the challenges of a more dangerous world
both today and in the future. It tackles acquisition reform, military
retirement reform, personnel reform, headquarters and management
reform.
We identified $10 billion of excess and unnecessary spending from the
President's budget request. We are reinvesting it in military
capabilities for our warfighters and reforms that can yield long-term
savings for the Department of Defense. We did all of this while
upholding our commitments to our servicemembers, retirees, and their
families.
On acquisition reform, we put the services back into the acquisition
process, created new mechanisms to ensure accountability for results,
streamlined regulation, and opened up the defense acquisition process
to our Nation's innovators.
On military reform, we modernized and improved our military
retirement system. Today, 83 percent of servicemembers leave the
service with no retirement assets or benefits. Under this new plan, 75
percent of servicemembers would get benefits. This reform, over time,
is estimated to save $15 billion per year in the outyears.
On management reform, we ensure that the Department of Defense and
the military services are using precious defense dollars to fulfill
their missions and defend the Nation, not expand their bloated staffs.
Targeted reductions in headquarters and administrative staff in this
legislation--which is a

[[Page S4246]]

7.5-percent mandated reduction per year, up to a 30-percent reduction
in the size of headquarters and administrative staff--will generate
$1.7 billion in savings just for fiscal year 2016.
With these savings and billions more identified throughout the bill,
we accelerated shipbuilding, added an upgraded fighter aircraft,
invested in key modernization priorities across the services, and met
our commanders' most urgent needs. As adversaries threaten our military
technological advantage, the bill looks to the future and invests in
new breakthrough technologies, including directed energy and unmanned
combat aircraft.
The legislation is a reflection of the growing threats we face in the
world. The legislation authorizes nearly $3.8 billion in support for
Afghan security forces as they continue to defend their country in the
gains of the last decade against our common enemies. The legislation
authorizes the provision of defensive lethal assistance to Ukraine to
help it build combat capability and defend its sovereign territory. It
supports the efforts by Lebanon and Jordan to secure their borders
against ISIL. It creates a new initiative to help Southeast Asian
nations build maritime domain awareness capabilities to address growing
sovereignty challenges in the South China Sea.
This is an ambitious piece of legislation, but in the times we live
in, that is exactly what we need.
Henry Kissinger told our committee earlier this year that our Nation
faces the most diverse and complex array of crises since the end of
World War II. Rising to these challenges requires bold reform to our
national defense. This legislation represents a strong first step in
that direction.
As I said, this is a reform bill. This is an authorizing bill. This
brings about much needed reforms. I cannot go to the people of Arizona
and justify defense spending when there is a $2.4 billion cost overrun
on an aircraft carrier, when there are a number of weapons systems
which billions of dollars have been invested in and which have never
become reality. That system has to be reformed. That is what this bill
does.
We have to reform our military retirement system. We allow people,
after just 2 years of service, to contribute to their own retirement.
Today, they have to wait 20 years in order to do that.
We upgrade fighter aircraft.
We tell the defense industry that they cannot have those cost
overruns. If there are cost overruns, the service chiefs have to
personally sign that they know of, are aware of, and are taking action
to prevent further cost overruns.
So there is a lot in this legislation. It is an authorizing
legislation. That is why it disturbs me a great deal to hear my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying they want to vote
against it because of OCO. That is not sufficient reason in these
times. If they want to fight against OCO, the place to do it--the
overseas contingency operation money which brings up authorizing
spending to the same level that the President has requested--if they
want to do that, then let's have that fight in another arena. But let's
not take away from the men and women who are serving in this military
the equipment and the training and the leadership that is demanded in
the world as it is today--in the words of Henry Kissinger, more diverse
and complex array of crises since the end of World War II.
So I urge all of my colleagues to restate their commitment to the
defense of this Nation by voting in favor of this legislation and
cloture prior to that. I urge my colleagues--all of them--to understand
that we can fight about this funding situation, the need to repeal
sequestration--sequestration is destroying our military's capability to
defend this Nation. Every uniformed service leader who appeared before
the Armed Services Committee said that with sequestration, we are
putting the lives of the men and women in uniform at greater risk. We
should not do that. We ask young men and women to volunteer for the
military, and yet we here in Congress won't take action to keep them
from being placed in greater danger. That is an abrogation of our
responsibility. This bill does not fix all that, but it certainly is a
major step in the right direction.
Almost all of this legislation was done on a bipartisan basis. There
were literally--there were some small disagreements, but overall the
committee together.
Now, at the behest of their leadership and perhaps the President of
the United States, they are so torqued up about OCO that they may vote
against this legislation's passage, and that, my friends, is an
abrogation of their responsibility to the men and women who are serving
this country. If they choose to vote against this legislation on the
grounds that they are opposed to the funding mechanism used to do so,
then they have their priorities upside down, and I intend to tell the
American people about it because I believe that we are not serving the
men and women who are serving this country to the best of their ability
and not receiving the support they need and deserve from the Senate of
the United States of America.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1911, as Further Modified

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am speaking on an amendment that the
Senate will be voting on shortly, the Inhofe-Mikulski amendment.
Really, the amendment was led by the distinguished Senator from
Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe. This is really about commissaries.
We are here ready to vote on the Department of Defense authorization.
We want to stand up for our troops. One of the most important things we
can do is to stand up for their families.
Senator Inhofe and I are deeply concerned that DOD has the misguided
viewpoint that shrinking or eliminating or privatizing the commissaries
will save money for the U.S. Department of Defense. We do not even know
what the impact of that will be. Senator Inhofe, with my encouragement
and support, wants to have an amendment that would actually look at the
impact of privatization and a private program to do so. So I want my
side of the aisle to know we stand shoulder to shoulder on this. The
Senator from Oklahoma has done an outstanding job as always in standing
up for the troops and their very important benefits.
I note that he is on the floor. I ask that when the rollcall is
called, we support the Inhofe-Mikulski amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
recognized for a couple of minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first, I wish to say to the Senator from
Maryland how much I appreciate the fact that we are reaching across the
aisle and doing something that is right for the kids who are out there
risking their lives for us.
I make it a habit to go to the areas of combat with regularity, as do
other members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and I always get
a chance to really talk with and get to know them. You learn a lot more
by talking to the kids in the mess hall there than you do by going to
the committee hearings here in the United States.
One of the things they have a real love for, as I am sure the Senator
from Maryland suggested to you, is the commissary. In some areas that
are remote, there is no competition. There aren't any Walmarts around;
there is just a commissary. And there is almost a fraternal belief and
feeling, as people go around--particularly, the spouses will meet
there. They will do their shopping there. It is something that is very
serious to them.
There is language in this bill that says that they will take an
experiment in some five different areas that have large commissaries,
go ahead and privatize those, and then after that takes place, do an
assessment as to whether they should be privatized.
This amendment is very simple. It merely says: Let's do the
assessment first. Why go ahead and close these commissaries if we find
that is something that we should not, in fact, do?
We have so many interests. First of all, we have--as I am sure the
Senator

[[Page S4247]]

from Maryland mentioned--we have some 25 cosponsors already. This is
without real effort. We also have some 41 organizations supporting this
bill.
I see that the time is up.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time
has expired.
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. I yield to the Chair.

Vote on Amendment No. 1911, as Further Modified

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

Vote on Amendment No. 1456

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

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

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

Vote on Amendment No. 1463, as Amended

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

cloture motion

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

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on H.R. 1735, an
act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, for
military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel
strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.
Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Richard C. Shelby, Jeff
Flake, John Barrasso, John Cornyn, Mike Rounds, Jeff
Sessions, Shelley Moore Capito, Lamar Alexander,
Lindsey Graham, Joni Ernst, John Hoeven, Roger F.
Wicker, Kelly Ayotte, Richard Burr, Thom Tillis.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). By unanimous consent, the
mandatory quorum call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on H.R.
1735, an act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 84, nays 14, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 214 Leg.]

YEAS--84

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

NAYS--14

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

NOT VOTING--2

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

____________________