Roger Wicker

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. If my friend will yield briefly.

Mr. WICKER. I know she wants to talk about the larger issue. If it is, in fact, a modest and relatively harmless extension of the size, then I think perhaps States might want to make that decision themselves. They may very well conclude--39 have not made that decision, but 11 States have made that decision. And even though some may consider this a modest extension, I think modesty and the length of the trucks and the safety thereof is really in the eye of the beholder, and the State of Mississippi might feel very different than one of the wide-open Western States. I thank my friend for her comments.

Mr. WICKER. Once again, I stress the point, this is Pennsylvania specific. Pennsylvania has made a considered decision not to allow these. I think it ill-behooves us as a Congress to say we know better about the roads and the condition of the bridges in the State of Pennsylvania than the local authorities do. So in the interest of deferring to the States, I think we should adopt the Feinstein-Wicker amendment not to mandate these longer trucks on States that do not want them. Also, I do want to stress a few things. If this goes forward, it will have been done with no hearings in this Congress in any committee. The Appropriations Committee, which voted on this, did not have a hearing. The transportation committee, which I serve on, did not have a hearing. The commerce committee, which is another committee of jurisdiction on this matter, never had a hearing about this. Wouldn't it be a good idea--before we tell States they have to do this--to get proponents of this Federal mandate before us to answer questions about it--perhaps opponents of this Federal mandate to come and give us their considered opinion, experts about the safety issues, experts about what this will do to bridges, about what it will do to tear up our highways. Wouldn't that be a good idea before we decide in our wisdom inside the beltway in Washington, DC, that we know better than 39 States? I think it would be a good idea. We might want to hear from AAA. We might want to hear from officials of the State of Missouri who have memorialized this Congress not to mandate this on the very people whom they are trying to represent on a State-by-State basis. I would like to get the Mississippi Trucking Association here. They have come out against this Federal mandate. They are in favor of the Feinstein-Wicker amendment to continue to leave this up to the States. I would like to get them before a hearing and hear them out. Perhaps Members of Congress and members of the various committees could be convinced, as I have become convinced, that they are correct. Why would any trucker be opposed to this? I will simply tell you, a lot of truckers are small businesspeople. We honor small business people. We know they are the engine of job creation in the United States of America. Many of the small truckers have told me--and they make up organizations like the Mississippi Trucking Association--they cannot compete in an environment in which this becomes the norm. The big guys can easily move to the tandem 33 trailers, but the small business people cannot. It is much harder for them to get a loan. It is much harder for them to come up with the capital expenditure of moving to this, and many of them feel as though they will be put out of business. So I think we should be very careful about saying we are going to run over the considered opinion of people in 39 States, we are going to disregard the Mississippi Association of Chiefs of Police and a host of other State chiefs of police associations, we are going to disregard the Mississippi Sheriffs' Association and a laundry list of other sheriffs associations from all around the United States of America. I think the better approach is the Feinstein approach, which lost on a tie vote in the Appropriations Committee. The Feinstein approach says: Let's make sure we have a full and comprehensive study about this and get back to us, and if we implement it, let's do it in the normal course of events with the rulemaking process and comments from all sides. So all this Feinstein-Wicker amendment does is say we cannot mandate this this year. Instead, we are going to ask the leading experts in this city to come back to us and tell us if, in their opinion, this is safe, to tell us, in their opinion, what this will do to bridges and infrastructure. I think that is the better approach. There were 30 members of the Appropriations Committee who voted on this issue--exactly 30. Let me make sure I am precise. The Feinstein amendment lost on a vote of 15 to 15. Now, should that go forward as the policy of this U.S. Senate? I do not think so. I think we owe it to the American people, on an issue that involves safety, on an issue that involves infrastructure, and on an issue that involves deferring to the States to make the best decisions for their people--I think we owe it to them to have a full vote and not let something go forward on a virtual tie vote. The provision that is now in the appropriations bill was adopted 16 to 14 in the Appropriations Committee with no hearings. I simply ask my colleagues, is that the way to make a major safety decision, an infrastructure decision for the American people? So we are nearing the time when supporters of the Feinstein-Wicker amendment are hoping for a vote. I was heartened to hear the conversation of the majority leader yesterday that he certainly hoped we would be able to have votes on germane amendments like this. I appreciate the efforts of the ranking member of the committee, a friend of mine from California, in saying she is going to do whatever she can to get us a vote on this. So I do appreciate it. I would say to Members listening today, it is time to get informed on this issue. It is time to find out what the facts are, to realize this appropriations decision that I am trying to reverse and put the brakes on, to a certain extent, is not permissive in nature. It is a requirement. If it goes through, we will be telling 39 States they are wrong, somehow we are right here in Washington, DC. So I hope, first of all, we can get an amendment on the floor, and I hope Members will search their consciences and decide that indeed this is something which at least ought to be thoroughly studied. We ought to have all of the facts. More than that, this is something where we don't need to run over the 39 States that happen to feel otherwise. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I once again come to the floor to talk about a Feinstein-Wicker amendment to this Transportation bill, which I hope we can have a vote on and dispose of and let the U.S. Senate work its will on, either late tonight or perhaps tomorrow after the pending business is taken care of. I would begin by quoting from an editorial that was in yesterday's Post-Gazette, the daily newspaper in Pittsburgh, where it says: ``The tractor-trailer roaring by you on the highway could be 9 feet longer next year.'' It could be this long, as shown on this chart I have in the Chamber. It could be mandated by this Congress on 39 States that do not want it. The editorial goes on to point out there is legislation pending that would force these longer trucks on these 39 States--on all 50 States-- 11 of them already allow it, but 39 do not. Unless we act and adopt the Feinstein-Wicker amendment on this bill, a provision in the Transportation appropriations bill will go forward and is likely to be signed into law requiring this. This will have been done, I might add, without a full debate, without a hearing being held in any committee of the Senate on this issue. So what are we talking about? I have in the Chamber a poster that says: ``Would You Feel Safe Driving Next to a Double 33?'' As shown here, this is the size of the proposed new longer trucks that we would mandate on all 50 States. As you can see on the chart, here is the size of a typical passenger car. Here is the comparative size of a motorcycle, a bicycle, and, of course, here is a defenseless pedestrian. Compared to the pedestrian down to the passenger car, this Federal mandate that I am trying to at least give a timeout to would mandate on States that they allow these twin 33 trailers, and they would be driving along next to this car that my kids are going to be driving in and my grandchildren are going to be riding in. I do not think it is a good idea. But I would point out, if a State does think it is a good idea, I am not going to stand in their way. Some 11 States have decided they are willing to take this risk--many of them out in the wide-open spaces of the West. But it is worth saying that these 39 States do not allow longer tandem trucks, and we should ask ourselves whether Congress knows better than these States. These States do not allow them: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, and Illinois. As a matter of fact, we have a unanimous resolution from the Illinois State Senate, a bipartisan, unanimous resolution from the Illinois State Senate, saying: Do not mandate these double 33s on us. I go on: Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, my home State of Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, Mr. President. None of those States allows twin 33s now, but there is a proposal I am trying to stop that would mandate that these States must allow for the longer and, I believe, more dangerous trucks. The editorial goes on to quote the former head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, who ``likens the massive trucks to `trains on highways' that would damage roads and endanger motorists.'' I think it makes a lot of sense. I think it would damage roads. I think it would endanger motorists. Now, if my State of Mississippi, with the considered judgment of the Mississippi Department of Transportation and their commission, the Mississippi Sheriffs' Association, the Mississippi Association of Chiefs of Police--if all of those people are advising us against this, why should we as a Congress tell these States that we know better than they do? I will just quote one final statement from the editorial before I ask it be printed in the Record. The editorial concludes: ``With its bridges already in the worst shape in the nation, Pennsylvania doesn't need longer trucks on its roads.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise to talk about a very important amendment that Senator Feinstein and I will be offering to the transportation bill when we move to consideration. That vote may be around 2 a.m., and then the clock will tick. But then at some point on Sunday, I am hoping that we will begin the process of considering amendments and, chief among them, should be the Feinstein-Wicker amendment to the bill regarding truck-length increases. Our amendment would authorize the Secretary of Transportation to require a truck size-and-weight study before promulgating a rule to increase the minimum length limitation for trucks. Now I show to my colleagues and I show to the Presiding Officer a poster. What I am showing is a picture, a drawing of what we call twin 33's. This is the tractor trailer. Here is a 33-foot trailer, and here is another 33-foot trailer tacked on to the back of that. So twin 33's are long trucks--longer than is allowed in 39 States. So far we have let the States make the decision about whether to accept these, and some 39 of our Federal States have decided: No, we don't want trucks this long with the twin 33 trailers on them in our States. Our amendment would accept that decision on the part of the States. Our decision would allow those 39 States to continue to make that decision. Of course, the States that want trucks that long can make that decision themselves. Why are we having to offer such an amendment on this highway and transportation bill? Because the Appropriations Committee, by a very close margin of some 16 yeses and 14 noes, has decided otherwise. Unless we act as a Senate, that legislation on the appropriations side of things will go forward and will become the law of the land, telling 39 States that they cannot make their own decisions on twin 33's. So we would allow the States to continue to make this decision while the Secretary of Transportation promulgates a full rule to increase the minimum length limitation. I will tell you that preliminary information from the U.S. Department of Transportation indicates that we don't need to go to mandatory twin 33's. The U.S. Department of Transportation has concluded there should be no change to the current maximum truck length limit allowed on Federal highways. Their preliminary report goes on to say: ``The Department finds that the current data limitations are so profound that no changes in the relevant laws and regulations should be considered until these data limitations are overcome.'' So that is the counsel of the U.S. Department of Transportation. I will say that I am not always bound by what the Federal departments say. As a matter of fact, I would stress that decisions are better made by the States and State legislators, Governors, and transportation commissions, but I do think it is instructive that even these people at the Federal level are counseling against this idea of a Federal mandate to all 50 States that they must move to the twin 33's. So that is the U.S. Department of Transportation. Why is Roger Wicker from Mississippi on the floor advocating for federalism and advocating for States making their own decisions, basically advocating against a Federal mandate for these long trucks? I will tell you. I started hearing from folks. When this issue came before the Appropriations Committee, a group of people rose up and said: What are you doing? What are you thinking, mandating this to all 50 States without their consent? So who is for the Feinstein-Wicker amendment and opposed to mandatory twin 33 trucks in all of our States? I will tell you who is opposed to it--advocates for highway and auto safety. AAA knows a little something about getting around the United States of America. AAA is for the Feinstein-Wicker amendment. The National Troopers Coalition knows a little something about safety on the highways. They are opposed to mandatory twin 33's. I will also tell you it is very interesting that as for the Mississippi Trucking Association, you would think every trucker would want to be for this, make more money, and get to haul more stuff. The Mississippi Trucking Association contacted our office and said: We don't want this. Senator Wicker, other Members of the Senate and the House, oppose this Federal mandate that is about to come out of the Appropriations Committee and pass the Feinstein-Wicker amendment. The Mississippi Trucking Association is for our amendment and against twin 33's, along with a host of other trucking associations from east to west and from north to south. I will tell you who else is opposed to mandatory twin 33's: the Mississippi Sheriffs' Association and a host of other States' sheriffs associations and the Mississippi Association of Chiefs of Police and a host of other State associations of chiefs of police. Did I mention that the Illinois State Senate unanimously passed a resolution in support of what the Feinstein-Wicker amendment would do and opposed mandatory twin 33's. The Illinois State Senate unanimously passed this resolution saying to the Congress: Leave it up to the State of Illinois. We know what is best for our State when it comes to infrastructure. We know what is best for our State when it comes to the safety of our citizens. So it is people such as them. The Mississippi Transportation Commission, or MDOT, has passed a unanimous resolution asking us to oppose twin 33's on a mandatory basis. Why are people so opposed to these? They haul a whole lot more. Obviously, some people would make a lot more money if they could have this much area in their trailers to haul things. So why are people opposed to it? Well, they are concerned about--for one thing--wear and tear on our Nation's infrastructure. We are going to pass a bill, I hope, in a few days and send it over to the House. We hope we get it sent to the President on a bipartisan basis, and we want to build some more highways. We want to strengthen our bridges. Everyone within the sound of my voice knows we need to do that. It is a question of how to come up with the money, but the last thing we need to do is to authorize-- not authorize, mandate--something that is going to cause more wear and tear and that 39 States don't want because of the wear and tear. Also, estimates are that this forced mandate, if it comes from Washington, DC--if the Feinstein-Wicker amendment or something like it doesn't pass--will cost about $1.2 billion to $1.8 billion per year in additional funding because of the pavement damage. It just doesn't stand to reason that you can mandate this sort of additional truck length on the highways without more damage to the highways. It makes sense, and we have statistics to prove it. Also, it is a matter of public safety. I will tell you that not every interstate in my State of Mississippi is exactly straight and narrow. We have some hills, and we have places where the curves are less desirable than I would like them to be. We are told that stopping distances are going to increase if we mandate this sort of thing on the 50 States. There are longer stopping distances for double 33's than the truck configuration we currently have on the roads in the United States of America. The double 33 trailers in some studies took 22 feet longer to stop than the current double 28's with normal operating brakes. I have four grandchildren in Mississippi. I have two daughters with small children, two sons-in-law in Mississippi, and they are driving up and down these highways. I would just as soon they not have to compete on the roads, on those curves. On Waterworks Curve in Jackson, MS, I would rather my three grandchildren not be in a van with a twin 33 trying to pass them. I just don't think it is safe for my children and my grandchildren, and the State governments in 39 States apparently agree. If they decide they disagree, they have that right. Also, I think that Senator Feinstein and I, with our amendment, are standing up for small business. Do you know who can afford a twin 33 tractor-trailer rig, double 33's? The big guys. The big companies. You know their names. They can afford to do this. And certainly one can understand why they would think it would be better for their business. But I will tell you there is a reason why the Mississippi Trucking Association is opposed to this. They do not have the money to convert to a bunch of twin 33 double trailers. They would rather not do this. As a matter of fact, this Federal mandate--if Congress decides to do this, and I certainly hope we don't; I hope we don't think we are so smart we can mandate this on 50 States--is going to put some small truckers out of business. That is why the Mississippi Truckers Association passed a resolution. That is why they have contacted me. And I will tell you this, Mr. President. While the American Trucking Association says they are for these twin 33's, the individual members of the ATA--the American Trucking Association--have come to me and said: Thank you, Senator Wicker, for standing up for our interests because we are small businesses and we can't afford to get in this competition. It will run us out of business to have to go out and make a capital investment. I would also make an argument just in the name of federalism. There is a reason we have 50 States. And, you know, my Republican Party won an election in November and we won control of this body. One of the things we have said as Republicans is that we don't think all the wisdom resides here in Washington, DC. We don't like a lot of Federal mandates; we like States making decisions. We made a bold statement last week that States should make their own decisions and school boards locally should make their own decisions with regard to education. I voted for that. I applaud that. It didn't go as far as many on this side would have perhaps wanted, but we made a strong statement that we wouldn't have a national education school board policy; we would move more of the decisionmaking back to the States. So why on Earth, a week and a half or 2 weeks later, would we make a decision here in Washington, DC, that we know more about how to take care of infrastructure; that we know more about truck lengths and more about safety for our children and grandchildren here in Washington, DC, than State legislatures do? I just don't think we will do that. I urge my colleagues, while we have some time to debate, to get down to the floor. Let's talk about this issue. We will be standing in quorum calls and recesses subject to the call of the Chair for perhaps most of this weekend. We have time to debate this issue now and for the few moments it takes Sunday or Monday or Tuesday or whenever we actually vote on this. We are entitled to a vote, Mr. President, on this germane amendment. And this is germane. It is not something extraneous, dealing with social issues or Planned Parenthood or any number of nongermane issues that I am sympathetic with. This is a transportation issue. It is germane to the bill. The Senate needs to work its will on this issue. It needs to go over to the House and they need to work their will. I think that once we think about this, I would say to the Presiding Officer and to the rest of my colleagues, we will make the decision that we ought to leave this issue up to the States. There is a reason 39 States don't want to do this, in their considered opinion. We ought to respect that decision. We ought to do it in the name of federalism, in the name of the States having the right to do things a little differently in each State if they want to, in the name of safety, in the name of infrastructure, and in the name of fairness. I thank Senator Feinstein for joining with me on this bipartisan amendment, and I urge my colleagues, when the time comes--after the brief debate on the floor on this issue has occurred--to vote yes in favor of the Feinstein-Wicker amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor to my friend.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I look forward to working on a bipartisan basis to make sure that this peace holds, to make sure that progress is made on the ethnic issues--that we give Bosnians and Herzegovinians every reason to continue to want to embrace Europe and to embrace the United States and to embrace fairness and anticorruption and all the work that it is going to take there. I appreciate the delegation. I appreciate Secretary Albright. I appreciate President Clinton leading the delegation. And I appreciate the indulgence of our fellow Senators in hearing this colloquy. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER. The Senator from New Hampshire is exactly right. It is in the United States' interest that we care about the Balkans, that we care about Bosnia and Herzegovina. We owe it to the U.S. troops who were deployed there in 1995 and later, who kept the peace and made it work. There is no country on the face of the Earth that could have done that but the United States of America. We owe it to the memory of the leadership, not only of President Clinton, who basically hosted the Dayton Accords in the United States of America, but also Republicans such as Speaker Gingrich. It was Gingrich and Clinton who joined together and convinced this government to support the Dayton Agreement and support the necessary deployment to make sure this worked. As the Senator pointed out, we owe it to history going forward to remember that World War I broke out in Sarajevo, that the events leading up to World War II largely occurred in the Balkans, and to do what we can in the interest of U.S. citizens to say that this will not again be a flashpoint for conflict in Europe and conflict internationally.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I do agree. I would contrast the magnanimous statements of the Tripresidency and the gesture of the Serbian President in attending with the disappointing actions of the Russian leadership, under the leadership of President Putin, in actually vetoing a Security Council resolution simply to commemorate the 20th anniversary as a genocide. Russia refused to accept a well- established fact, confirmed by international courts such as the International Court of Justice, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. They vetoed--they were the only vote against it, but it acted as a veto--thus keeping the United Nations officially from going on record as saying this was a genocide and that these acts should be condemned. Such defiance is a disservice not only to the victims at Srebrenica but also to relations in the area going forward. I would just contrast that with the very brave step on the part of the Serbian President, coming to Srebrenica and being part of the commemorative ceremony. I will tell my colleagues that former President Clinton spoke on behalf of this Republican and spoke on behalf of Democrats alike, making a very instructive and constructive address at the occasion, specifically commending the Serbian President. I would say, with regard to the rock throwing incident and what the President of Serbia actually did, his glasses were broken, and he and members of his delegation were brought to their knees. I would say that if the 50 or so people who threw those rocks had heard the remarks inside the ceremony, perhaps they would not have felt so bitter as to throw those rocks. I know there are wounds that need to be healed. But I think the conciliatory words inside, if they had been broadcast to the entire crowd, would have perhaps caused that incident, which got all the publicity, not to happen. This was about 50 people causing a disturbance in a crowd of, I would say, about 5,000 people gathered outside. It was a very important ceremony--actually, a funeral, you might say. So I would have to just say that the Russian leadership really should be ashamed of standing in the way of international recognition of this genocide. They thought they were doing their Serbian neighbors a favor, but, on the other hand, the Serbian President stepped forward in a very brave way to create unity in this region, and I think my colleague would agree with that.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Shaheen and I be allowed to enter into a colloquy concerning the 20th anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from New Hampshire today to speak about a moving and important commemoration that she and I attended over the weekend. We were part of the U.S. delegation led by former President Bill Clinton that traveled to Bosnia and Herzegovina to remember the victims of the Srebrenica massacre 20 years ago. We were honored to be joined in this delegation by Representative Peter King from New York, and I think it is significant that former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was part of that delegation. On July 11, 1995, more than 8,000 Bosniak Muslim men and boys were brutalized and murdered by Serbian forces that overran a United Nations safe haven during the Bosnian war. It was the worst massacre on European soil since the horrors of World War II. Today, Senator Shaheen and I wear green and white flowers on our lapels. These flowers were crocheted by Srebrenica mothers and widows in remembrance of the lives that were lost 20 years ago. The white is said to symbolize innocence, and the green represents hope. It is said to be significant that the center is green because hope remains central to the country's future and to the region's future. Two decades provide us with a helpful benchmark for reflecting on the progress that has been made and on the progress that needs to be made. The decades have certainly not erased the deep scars left by the atrocities at Srebrenica, but the hurt continues to heal. International courts have recognized the massacre as a genocide, and a number of the perpetrators have been imprisoned. Peace is now present in the Western Balkans and we need to do what we can to help maintain this peace. The Bosnian and Herzegovinian leadership is now applying for membership in the European Union. We wish them well in making the progress that will be necessary to attain this status. Tough decisions still need to be made by the leadership, by the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina with regard to governance, corruption, and combating extremes. There is still way too much rhetoric that centers on ethnicity and continues to divide Bosnians rather than unite them. But we can celebrate the fact that this region is no longer home to the suffering and violence that predated the historic Dayton Accords, and we can celebrate the contribution and achievement of the Americans in reaching the Dayton Accords and in getting us to where we are now with two decades of peace. I know that these views are shared by my colleague from New Hampshire. At this point, perhaps she would like to join in this colloquy.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on June 17, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Reauthorizing the Higher Education Act: Evaluating Accreditation's Role in Ensuring Quality.''

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 17, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency's Final Rule to Regulate Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities.''

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 17, 2015, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 17, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Governing Through Goal Setting: Enhancing the Economic and National Security of America.''

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 17, 2015, at 2 p.m.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 17, 2015, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:15 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Accessing Capital in Indian Country.''

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 17, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a Subcommittee hearing entitled ``Oversight of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.''

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, it is my privilege to ask unanimous consent that Capt. Matthew T. Reeder, a U.S. Marine Corps national security fellow in Senator Ayotte's office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this Congress.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I rise in support of the national defense authorization bill and would point out to my colleagues that this is a piece of legislation which for half a century has enjoyed bipartisan support--during Republican administrations, Democratic administrations, and during times of majority on the Democratic side and on the Republican side. Regrettably, last year this Chamber did not take up the NDAA until December--months after it had been approved in committee. I commend Senator Levin, the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, for reporting the bill out of his committee during Democratic majorities, and if he had his way, we would have taken up the bill much earlier. I also want to commend Senator McCain, our current Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee for again, in a timely way, reporting this bipartisan bill. And then I think commendation is due to the new leadership of this Senate for taking up this bill in a timely fashion in June rather than waiting until December. It has been said by the distinguished minority leader that taking up this bill is a waste of time because the President has said he would veto this bill. It is curious that he would say so because this bill funds national security at the amount requested by the President of the United States. I think to people out there listening in the public, it is curious the President would say ``I am going to veto a bill'' that actually funds security items at the administration's requested level. I would also point out to my colleagues that this is not the first time the President has issued a veto threat. This happened on the Iran nuclear negotiations bill, where at first the President said: If the House and Senate send me such a bill, I will veto it. But the more we talked about it and the more we brought the American people into the discussion and the more the light was shown on the issue and the American public opinion began to be known, the more popular the idea became in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. At the end of the day, it was unanimous or virtually unanimous in the Foreign Relations Committee that the Senate and the House should be heard on the issue of any negotiations this administration has, as the Secretary of State might have with the Iranian leadership. At the end of the day, it passed overwhelmingly, and the President actually changed his mind. Having said he would veto that Iranian nuclear bill, he changed his mind and sent word that he would, in fact, sign it. I hope the same thing will happen in this situation. I hope the President will rescind his veto threat and, after we have worked our will and after this bill has gone over to a conference committee with the House of Representatives and we have come up with a compromise between the House and the Senate, I hope the President will, in fact, change his mind and change his position as he did on the Iranian bill and sign it. I do not think it is a waste of time. I think it is critical that we do this. It is often that we start off on a partisan basis. I have the highest regard for the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. He and I served together in the House of Representatives. It has been my privilege to serve on the committee with the distinguished ranking member for some time. I think he would acknowledge that we started off the defense markup with all Republicans saying they were going to vote for it and with all Democrats saying they would be a ``no'' vote. But the more we got into that issue and the more Senator McCain began to work with Members on both sides of the aisle and amendments were offered and debate was held, that opposition began to melt away. At the end of the day, on this bill that is before us today, there were eight Democrats who voted aye in the committee and only four Democrats who voted no. As I recall, all of the Republicans on the committee voted yes. It was an overwhelmingly bipartisan support of something that started off dividing us, Republicans versus Democrats. It is important that we continue to do that. The focus should be on our national security priorities. The focus should be on the troops. This bill funds the troops in a very meaningful and a very reform- oriented way. This is necessary under the current times. I want to quote from an earlier Armed Services hearing we had, wherein Director of National Intelligence James Clapper warned the committee. I will quote the Director of National Intelligence. He said that ``unpredictable instability is the new normal.'' ``Unpredictable instability is the new normal.'' He pointed out that ``last year was the most lethal year for global terrorism in 45 years.'' It so happens that we have only been keeping statistics on the lethal degree of terrorism for 45 years. In the recorded 45-year history of keeping tabs on this, this is the most lethal year, this past year--tough times, dangerous times. This was underscored by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, when he testified at a hearing before the committee earlier this year. He said that ``the United States has not faced a more diverse and complex array of crises since the end of the Second World War.'' This is a dangerous world. This is a dangerous time. We have a bill that addresses these times, and I think we should move forward with it. The Obama administration may be unwilling to admit that the world is less safe, but there is no denying the extraordinary challenges. I think Members on both sides of the aisle would acknowledge this: ISIS or ISIL, the newly resurgent and aggressive Russia and what they have done in invading Crimea and eastern Ukraine, the havoc across the Middle East in nations such as Yemen and Syria, nations that are collapsing into chaos. These are serious times. Yet our President said, on the European Continent yesterday, that ``we don't have a complete strategy'' for dealing with ISIS in Iraq. This is not a time to block resources our military needs. As a matter of fact, it is a time for us to act as Americans and not as partisans. There are several reasons why passing this bill this month should not be controversial: First, it would authorize the same amount of funding as requested by the President. Second, it contains one of the most substantive defense reforms we have seen in years. It would adopt $10 billion worth of efficiencies that would pave the way for long-term savings at the Department of Defense. Third, the bill champions greater efficiency by reducing bureaucracy at the Pentagon and reforming the weapons acquisition system. Just because we need to spend more money for defense does not mean we need to spend more money to hire bureaucrats and staffers at the Pentagon. Fourth, it is very important to point out the reforms in this bill make sure that the men and women who fight for our country, including those who are wounded or who have retired, have the quality of life, health care and support they deserve. Fifth, this bill would modernize the military retirement system. Something that has been recommended to us by experts in the military and by retired military people. It would not only extend benefits to more servicemembers, but also give them more value. It would give our servicemembers more choice in their retirement system. Too many of our members are being excluded from the current system. Maintaining our All-Volunteer Force requires taking care of those who have chosen to serve. Let me give a big shout-out and thank-you to Senator Mazie Hirono, my ranking member on the Seapower Subcommittee. We have worked closely in the Seapower mark of this legislation. As a matter of fact, I regret that Senator Hirono and I could not do our two speeches on this bill together. That was our intent, for me to speak as chair and for her to speak as ranking member because we have cooperated so much in our Seapower title. Our title in the bill addresses shortfalls in the Navy's ability to meet requirements. We have 30 ships and our Navy's amphibious fleet is much smaller than the Marine Corps tells us is required. Last year, the Chief of Naval Operations, ADM Jonathan Greenert, said that more like 50 ships are required if we want to do everything the military is being asked to do. We need to address this and at least move from 30 ships toward that goal of 50 that Admiral Greenert suggested. This year's NDAA would authorize $199 million for an additional American-class amphibious assault ship as well as $80 million in research and development. This sends a powerful message to anyone who would be our adversary. These ships are known as the ``Swiss Army Knives'' of the sea because they are so versatile and because they respond to so many of the threats, including counterterrorism, piracy, combat missions, and humanitarian crises. We also recognize the need to modernize our submarine fleet. Again, thank you to Senator Hirono, the ranking member, for working with us on this. The Seapower Subcommittee is preparing for the eventual construction of the Ohio-class replacement submarine program. This is an expensive program. It is necessary. It is expensive. We are about the business of providing the necessary funds to mitigate higher costs for the submarine program on our shipbuilding budget. I am so pleased we addressed these Seapower needs. In addition, we do our best to meet the needs of the National Guard, to support a modern fleet for the Army, for mental health services for our troops and veterans, and the protection for our servicemembers' religious convictions. It is a comprehensive reform bill that ought to have the same sort of bipartisan support we have had for last 50 years. We need a bill, in conclusion, that takes an honest look at our current challenges and implements necessary reforms. I am pleased to say this bill does so, and I hope we move forward, get past this moment of suiting up in a partisan fashion, and send this bill with an overwhelming vote from the U.S. Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 19, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 19, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``No Place to Grow Up: How to Safely Reduce Reliance on Foster Care Group Homes.''