[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 99 (Thursday, June 14, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3932-S3943]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 5515, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 5515) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2019 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:
Inhofe/McCain modified amendment No. 2282, in the nature of
a substitute.
McConnell (for Toomey) amendment No. 2700 (to amendment No.
2282), to require congressional review of certain regulations
issued by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United
States.
Reed/Warren amendment No. 2756 (to amendment No. 2700), to
require the authorization of appropriation of amounts for the
development of new or modified nuclear weapons.
Lee amendment No. 2366 (to the language proposed to be
stricken by amendment No. 2282), to clarify that an
authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or
any similar authority does not authorize the detention
without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent
resident of the United States.
Reed amendment No. 2842 (to amendment No. 2366), to require
the authorization of appropriation of amounts for the
development of new or modified nuclear weapons.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first, let me make sure we get into the
Record as accurately as I am saying right now, to Abe Schumer, that his
little boy's most predictable adversary wishes him today a happy
birthday.
Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you. I thank the Senator.
Mr. INHOFE. That was very touching. Thank you very much, I say to my
friend, Senator Schumer.
Mr. President, I want to start today by giving an update as to where
we are in the process for the NDAA.
At 10:30 a.m., which is coming up shortly, we are going to have a
cloture vote on Toomey's amendment that applies the REINS Act to the
CFIUS rulemaking process. We all know what that is. We all know there
is opposition. If that vote fails, we will immediately roll into a
cloture vote on the substitute amendment. That is our amendment, which
we will be considering as the bill. Then, we hope to invoke cloture on
the underlying bill this afternoon before we head out of town. If we
are able to do that, we will have the final passage vote on Monday when
we return.
We are also working diligently as we speak to clear an additional
managers' package. One of the things we were talking about, and I have
been somewhat critical of some of my fellow Members, is the fact that
we have been operating under rules--and we have gone through this in
years past; it is almost predictable that one individual will try to
use this bill as a must-pass bill. Everyone knows it is going to pass;
it has passed for the last 57 years. So, logically, it is where you put
an amendment that is very difficult to pass. I don't blame them for
that. I would do the same thing. Nonetheless, I wouldn't do it if it
caused all other amendments to not be considered.
I am hoping we will be able to have a managers' package. I have
reason to believe and I am optimistic about that, and it would be a
great thing to have. I don't know how many of these amendments would
ultimately be in the managers' package, but we are talking about a lot
of amendments, and we have already cleared many amendments.
Anyone who criticizes the process that we are going through right now
may not be aware of how many amendments we have considered in our work
on this in committee. We are talking about some 300 amendments, and
since that time, countless amendments have been agreed to on both
sides. That is where we are today.
It will be a great victory for all of us in this Chamber if we can
get the managers' amendments agreed to, and hopefully that will be
true.
I can't neglect that today is the Army's 243rd birthday. I actually
attended a birthday party for the U.S. Army quite a while before a lot
of you were even born, when I was in Fort Lee, VA, in the U.S. Army. We
would have been celebrating the 180th birthday at that time. Back when
we were celebrating the 180th birthday, I never dreamed I would be
around to celebrate the 243rd birthday of the U.S. Army.
The Army is actually older than this country is. In 1775, brave
Americans joined the cause to fight for the life and liberty we hold so
dear now. It is the same motivation that still inspires the service of
the men and women who join the Army and, indeed, all of the service
branches today.
It is for those men and women that we are here today. That is what
this is all about--the NDAA that we are considering today. It has
provisions for individuals; it has specific provisions for the men and
women on the ground in harm's way, including the largest pay raise in
10 years. It means more opportunities for qualified servicemembers to
receive promotions throughout their careers. I think it is a
recognition that in the time in which this is taking place, there is a
new emphasis on defending America.
I don't say this critically, but the last administration had a policy
which said that we can't put any more money in sequestration for the
military unless we do the same for nondefense spending. A lot of people
agreed with that. I don't agree with that.
We are now at the point where we have broken parity, so I say to
individuals who are making career decisions: Help is on its way; this
is a good time to do it. Part of that is because of the modernization
of the personnel system in this legislation.
It also authorizes $40 million for supplemental impact aid support.
With an expansion of some military activities, individuals who are
involved are exempt from the taxes that support our schools. That is a
problem we have. Every State has a problem, but it is probably more
severe in Oklahoma than elsewhere. I would like to let individuals in
my State of Oklahoma, at five different installations, know that help
is on its way, and we are going to try to do a better job with the
supplemental impact aid than we have done in the past.
This bill increases funding for the personnel, improving the quality
of life for the forces and their families. Most importantly, it
increases end strength. It is not as much as I would like to see, but
it does grow the force, so servicemembers can have sufficient time to
be with their families and train before redeploying.
That is what we are doing right now. It is going to take a lot of
additional funding. We are authorizing that funding, and we are going
to be rebuilding.
I have to remind people in the outside world who are not here in
Washington that we do have a problem. The assumption that America has
the best of everything at one time was true, but it is not true. I
always document that because it is a pretty strong statement.
Right now, if we look at our artillery in terms of rapid fire and
range, both Russia and China have better range and rapid fire than we
have in the United States. We know we have done nothing with our
nuclear arsenal for the last 10 years. At the same time, our triad
system has been static, and Russia and China have improved theirs. They
are ahead of us in that area.
There is a new type of defense system that actually has a defense
mechanism that goes five times the speed of sound. It is still in the
experimental stage, but both China and Russia are ahead of us. The bill
we are considering now, ironically on the birthday of the U.S. Army, is
going to correct that. It is going to take a little while, but it is
ultimately going to correct that.
We have 20 or more minutes before we cast the two very significant
votes
[[Page S3933]]
that I just mentioned. This is everyone's opportunity to be heard. I am
hoping, and I really believe, that individuals who have been somewhat
of an obstacle in the past are cooperating at a new level, and I am
very excited about that. I hope we will be able to stay on the schedule
I just articulated a few minutes ago.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam 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. Madam President, we have two votes coming up. The first
vote is the one I strongly support. With this amendment, Senator Toomey
is looking to do something that has been very successful; that is, to
give a little more opportunity for us to oversee some of the
overregulations that are out there.
I was very pleased to have the first CRA that was mine, which I
authored, to be enacted into law. We have now had 16 CRAs,
Congressional Review Act. It is interesting because we went 20 years
without having any of them that were taken, and now we have been
successful in doing that. It is a stronger position for those of us in
the Senate to be able to get some things done. We can safeguard the
importance of deregulation, especially for the future, by passing this
amendment today.
Senator Toomey's amendment will give congressional oversight over the
CFIUS rulemaking process, which I think everyone in here knows needs to
be done and will be done. It will not slow down the implementation
process and still grants CFIUS the necessary flexibility to enact in
the name of national security.
After that, we are going to have the vote that is going to allow us
to move to a package, and I am hoping we will be able to do it because
there has been a lot of talk about not being able to get an open
amendment process. We have not had one, and that is unfortunate. If we
can get this package of amendments put together--there are going to be
quite a few of them--all of them will be cleared on both sides. It is
going to be one that people are going to be very anxious to get done.
It is going to give voice to many of the Members, probably some 40
Members who otherwise would not have the opportunity to have their
amendment agreed to or at least heard. I think we will have that
opportunity. It is very important we do it now. Hopefully, that package
of amendments is going to be one that will be favorably approved.
With that, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up
to 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2700
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I appreciate this broad support we have
seen for plugging the holes in our ability to evaluate foreign
investment with regard to national security risks in the United States.
We know China, for example, has been quite explicit about what it is
trying to do to surpass the United States economically and militarily,
and it has been very aggressive and very strategic in the way it has
tried to acquire intellectual property and know-how through foreign
investment in the United States. That is why this legislation is so
important.
I admire the Senator from Pennsylvania as one of the most principled
conservatives in this body and in Congress, but he and I differ over
whether the REINS Act, which would require up-or-down votes on
implementing regulations, should be a part of the implementation of
this national security legislation. I never dreamed we would do that in
a national security context as opposed to doing it in economic and
environmental legislation. Reluctantly, I oppose the amendment of the
Senator from Pennsylvania and encourage all of our colleagues to do the
same.
I conclude by saying, I share his concerns when it comes to using
national security as a pretext on economic legislation and trade
issues, and I look forward to continuing to work with him and all of my
other colleagues outside of the national security context to make sure
we support free and fair trade--trade that protects U.S. interests.
With the overstepping of the regulatory bounds by the executive branch
on occasion, I am all for rolling that back when we can but not in a
national security context like this.
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. TOOMEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address the
body for 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I make the case that this amendment we
are about to vote on is the simple question of whether we think we
ought to be accountable, that we ought to take responsibility for the
legislative authority we delegate.
Rulemaking is a legislative function. In this bill--the CFIUS reform
bill that is in the NDAA--and on many other occasions, we delegate a
portion of that authority--we delegate the rulemaking--to the executive
branch, which is fine. Yet we have a responsibility to make sure it
gets it right, this administration and future administrations.
This amendment has a mechanism that requires a simple up-or-down
vote--it can't be filibustered; it can't be delayed; it is a simple
majority vote--to affirm that the rulemaking will actually achieve the
legislative attempt. A ``no'' vote is really a vote to shirk our own
responsibility, our constitutional responsibility, since all
legislative authority is vested in the Congress of the United States.
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
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 senior assistant 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 Senate amendment
No. 2700 to amendment No. 2282, as modified, to H.R. 5515, an
act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2019 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.
Pat Toomey, Ted Cruz, Cindy Hyde-Smith, James Lankford,
John Cornyn, Roy Blunt, Thom Tillis, Marco Rubio, Mitch
McConnell, Ben Sasse, James M. Inhofe, James E. Risch,
John Barrasso, Cory Gardner, John Thune, Steve Daines,
Ron Johnson.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on
amendment No. 2700, offered by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr.
McConnell, for the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Toomey, to amendment
No. 2282, as modified, to H.R. 5515, an act to authorize appropriations
for fiscal year 2019 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 Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
Portman).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Portman)
would have voted ``yea.''
[[Page S3934]]
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Sullivan). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 35, nays 62, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 123 Leg.]
YEAS--35
Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Capito
Cassidy
Corker
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Ernst
Flake
Gardner
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Perdue
Rounds
Sasse
Scott
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young
NAYS--62
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Daines
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Hoeven
Jones
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Shelby
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Duckworth
McCain
Portman
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 35, the nays are
62.
The motion is rejected.
Cloture Motion
Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The senior assistant 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 Senate amendment
No. 2282, as modified, to H.R. 5515, an act to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2019 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, Mike Crapo, Deb Fischer, Mike Rounds,
Roger F. Wicker, Ted Cruz, Cindy Hyde-Smith, James
Lankford, Marco Rubio, James M. Inhofe, John Cornyn,
Roy Blunt, Thom Tillis, James E. Risch, John Barrasso,
Cory Gardner, John Thune.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on
amendment No. 2282, as modified, offered by the Senator from Oklahoma,
Mr. Inhofe, to H.R. 5515, an act to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2019 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 Idaho (Mr. Crapo) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr.
McCain).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo)
would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms.
Duckworth), is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 83, nays 14, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 124 Leg.]
YEAS--83
Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hassan
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Isakson
Jones
Kaine
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Manchin
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Shaheen
Shelby
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Whitehouse
Wicker
Young
NAYS--14
Cardin
Corker
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Harris
Johnson
Lee
Markey
Merkley
Paul
Sanders
Warren
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Crapo
Duckworth
McCain
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 83, the nays are
14.
The motion is agreed to.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Amendment No. 2366
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I make a point of order that amendment No.
2366 is not germane.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is well taken. The
amendment falls.
Amendment No. 2700
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I make a point of order that amendment No.
2700 is not germane.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is well taken. The
amendment falls.
Amendment No. 2276 to Amendment No. 2282, as Modified
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2276 on behalf of
Senator Boozman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe], for Mr. Boozman,
proposes an amendment numbered 2276 to amendment No. 2282, as
modified.
Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require a report on the permanent stationing of the United
States forces in the Republic of Poland)
Strike section 1254 and insert the following:
SEC. 1254. REPORT ON PERMANENT STATIONING OF UNITED STATES
FORCES IN THE REPUBLIC OF POLAND.
(a) In General.--Not later than March 1, 2019, the
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of
State, shall submit to the congressional defense committees a
report on the feasibility and advisability of permanently
stationing United States forces in the Republic of Poland.
(b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall
include the following:
(1) An assessment of the types of permanently stationed
United States forces in Poland required to deter aggression
by the Russian Federation and execute Department of Defense
contingency plans, including combat enabler units in
capability areas such as--
(A) combat engineering;
(B) logistics and sustainment;
(C) warfighting headquarters elements;
(D) long-range fires;
(E) air and missile defense;
(F) intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; and
(G) electronic warfare.
(2) An assessment of the feasibility and advisability of
permanently stationing a United States Army brigade combat
team in the Republic of Poland that includes the following:
(A) An assessment whether a permanently stationed United
States Army brigade combat team in Poland would enhance
deterrence against Russian aggression in Eastern Europe.
(B) An assessment of the actions the Russian Federation may
take in response to a United States decision to permanently
station a brigade combat team in Poland.
(C) An assessment of the international political
considerations of permanently stationing such a brigade
combat team in Poland, including within the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO).
(D) An assessment whether a such a brigade combat team in
Poland would support implementation of the National Defense
Strategy.
(E) A description and assessment of the manner in which
such a brigade combat team in Poland would affect the ability
of the Joint Force to execute Department of Defense
contingency plans in Europe.
(F) A description and assessment of the manner in which
such a brigade combat team in Poland would affect the ability
of the Joint Force to respond to a crisis inside the
territory of a North Atlantic Treaty Organization ally that
occurs prior to the invocation of Article 5 of the Washington
Treaty by the North Atlantic Council.
[[Page S3935]]
(G) An identification and assessment of--
(i) potential locations in Poland for stationing such a
brigade combat team;
(ii) the logistics requirements, including force enablers,
equipment, supplies, storage, and maintenance, that would be
required to support such a brigade combat team in Poland;
(iii) infrastructure investments by the United States and
Poland, including new construction or upgrades of existing
sites, that would be required to support such a brigade
combat team in Poland;
(iv) any new agreements, or changes to existing agreements,
between the United States and Poland that would be required
for a such a brigade combat team in Poland;
(v) any changes to the posture or capabilities of the Joint
Force in Europe that would be required to support such a
brigade combat team in Poland; and
(vi) the timeline required to achieve the permanent
stationing of such a brigade combat team in Poland.
(H) An assessment of the willingness and ability of the
Government of Poland to provide host nation support for such
a brigade combat team.
(I) An assessment whether future growth in United States
Army end strength may be used to source additional forces for
such a brigade combat team in Poland.
(c) Form.--The report required by subsection (a) shall be
submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified
annex.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Amendment No. 2885 to Amendment No. 2276
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2885 to amendment
No. 2276.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] proposes an
amendment numbered 2885 to amendment No. 2276.
Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To improve the amendment)
At the end, add the following:
SEC. 1254A. INEFFECTIVENESS OF SECTION 937.
Section 937, relating to a Strategic Defense Fellows
Program for the Department of Defense, shall have no force or
effect.
SEC. 1254B. JOHN S. MCCAIN STRATEGIC DEFENSE FELLOWS PROGRAM.
(a) Fellowship Program.--
(1) In general.--Not later than one year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
establish within the Department of Defense a civilian
fellowship program designed to provide leadership development
and the commencement of a career track toward senior
leadership in the Department.
(2) Designation.--The fellowship program shall be known as
the ``John S. McCain Strategic Defense Fellows Program'' (in
this section referred to as the ``fellows program'').
(b) Eligibility.--An individual is eligible for
participation in the fellows program if the individual--
(1) is a citizen of the United States or a lawful permanent
resident of the United States in the year in which the
individual applies for participation in the fellows program;
and
(2) either--
(A) possesses a graduate degree from an accredited
institution of higher education in the United States that was
awarded not later than two years before the date of the
acceptance of the individual into the fellows program; or
(B) will be awarded a graduate degree from an accredited
institution of higher education in the United States not
later than six months after the date of the acceptance of the
individual into the fellows program.
(c) Application.--
(1) Application required.--Each individual seeking to
participate in the fellows program shall submit to the
Secretary an application therefor at such time and in such
manner as the Secretary shall specify.
(2) Elements.--Each application of an individual under this
subsection shall include the following:
(A) Transcripts of educational achievement at the
undergraduate and graduate level.
(B) A resume.
(C) Proof of citizenship or lawful permanent residence.
(D) An endorsement from the applicant's graduate
institution of higher education.
(E) An academic writing sample.
(F) Letters of recommendation addressing the applicant's
character, academic ability, and any extracurricular
activities.
(G) A personal statement by the applicant explaining career
areas of interest and motivations for service in the
Department.
(H) Such other information as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
(d) Selection.--
(1) In general.--Each year, the Secretary shall select
participants in the fellows program from among applicants for
the fellows program for such year who qualify for
participation in the fellows program based on character,
commitment to public service, academic achievement,
extracurricular activities, and such other qualifications for
participation in the fellows program as the Secretary
considers appropriate.
(2) Number.--The number of individuals selected to
participate in the fellows program in any year may not exceed
the numbers as follows:
(A) Ten individuals from each geographic region of the
United States as follows:
(i) The Northeast.
(ii) The Southeast.
(iii) The Midwest.
(iv) The Southwest.
(v) The West.
(B) Ten additional individuals.
(3) Background investigation.--An individual selected to
participate in the fellows program may not participate in the
program unless the individual successfully undergoes a
background investigation applicable to the position to which
the individual will be assigned under the fellows program and
otherwise meets such requirements applicable to assignment to
a sensitive position within the Department that the Secretary
considers appropriate.
(e) Assignment.--
(1) In general.--Each individual who participates in the
fellows program shall be assigned to a position in the Office
of the Secretary of Defense.
(2) Position requirements.--Each Under Secretary of Defense
and each Director of a Defense Agency who reports directly to
the Secretary shall submit to the Secretary each year the
qualifications and skills to be demonstrated by participants
in the fellows program to qualify for assignment under this
subsection for service in a position of the office of such
Under Secretary or Director.
(3) Assignment to positions.--The Secretary shall each year
assign participants in the fellows program to positions in
the offices of the Under Secretaries and Directors described
in paragraph (2). In making such assignments, the Secretary
shall seek to best match the qualifications and skills of
participants in the fellows program with the requirements of
positions available for assignment. Each participant so
assigned shall serve as a special assistant to the Under
Secretary or Director to whom assigned.
(4) Term.--The term of each assignment under the fellows
program shall be one year.
(5) Pay and benefits.--An individual assigned to a position
under the fellows program shall be compensated at the rate of
compensation for employees at level GS-10 of the General
Schedule, and shall be treated as an employee of the United
States during the term of assignment, including for purposes
of eligibility for health care benefits and retirement
benefits available to employees of the United States.
(6) Education loan repayment.--To the extent that funds are
provided in advance in appropriations Acts, the Secretary may
repay any loan of a participant in the fellows program if the
loan is described by subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of section
16301(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code. Any repayment of
loans under this paragraph shall be on a first-come, first-
served basis.
(f) Career Development.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that
participants in the fellows program--
(A) receive opportunities and support appropriate for the
commencement of a career track within the Department leading
toward a future position of senior leadership within the
Department, including ongoing mentorship support through
appropriate personnel from entities within the Department
such as the Defense Business Board and the Defense Innovation
Board; and
(B) are provided appropriate opportunities for employment
and advancement within the Department upon successful
completion of the fellows program.
(2) Reservation of positions.--In carrying out paragraph
(1)(B), the Secretary shall reserve for participants who
successfully complete the fellows program not fewer than 30
positions in the excepted service within the Department that
are suitable for the commencement of a career track toward
senior leadership within the Department. Any position so
reserved shall not be subject to or covered by any reduction
in headquarters personnel required under any other provision
of law.
(3) Noncompetitive appointment.--Upon the successful
completion of the assignment of a participant in the fellows
program in a position pursuant to subsection (e), the
Secretary may, without regard to the provisions of subchapter
I of chapter 33 of title 5, United States Code, appoint the
participant to a position reserved pursuant to paragraph (2)
if the Secretary determines that such appointment will
contribute to the development of highly qualified future
senior leaders for the Department.
(4) Publication of selection.--The Secretary shall publish
on an Internet website of the Department available to the
public the names of the individuals selected to participate
in the fellows program.
(g) Outreach.--The Secretary shall undertake appropriate
outreach to inform potential participants in the fellows
program of the nature and benefits of participation in the
fellows program.
(h) Regulations.--The Secretary shall carry out this
section in accordance with such regulations as the Secretary
may prescribe for purposes of this section.
(i) Funding.--Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated
for each fiscal year for the Department of Defense for
operation and maintenance, Defense-wide, $10,000,000 may
[[Page S3936]]
be available to carry out the fellows program in such fiscal
year.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Amendment No. 2273
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I call up the Rounds amendment No. 2273 to
the underlying bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe], for Mr. Rounds,
proposes an amendment numbered 2273 to the language proposed
to be stricken by amendment No. 2282, as modified.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require a report on participation in the Transition
Assistance Program)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ___. REPORT ON PARTICIPATION IN THE TRANSITION
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
(a) Report Required.--Not later than February 28, 2019, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a
report on participation in the Transition Assistance Program
under section 1144 of title 10, United States Code, by
members of the Armed Forces.
(b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall
include the following:
(1) Information on the participation of members of the
Armed Forces in the Transition Assistance Program during
2018, including the following:
(A) The number of members who were eligible for
participation in the Program during 2018, in aggregate and by
component of the Armed Forces.
(B) The number of members who participated in the Program
during 2018, in aggregate and by component of the Armed
Forces, for each service as follows:
(i) Preseparation counseling provided by the Department of
Defense.
(ii) Briefings provided by the Department of Veterans
Affairs.
(iii) Employment workshops provided by the Department of
Labor.
(C) The number of members who did not participate in the
Program during 2018 due to a waiver of the participation
requirement under section 114(c)(2) of title 10, United Stats
Code, for each service set forth in subparagraph (B).
(2) Such recommendations for legislative or administrative
action as the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and
the Secretary of Homeland Security, considers appropriate to
increase participation of members of the Armed Forces in each
service set forth in paragraph (1)(B).
(3) Assessments of the Transition Assistance Program by
members of the Armed Forces who participated in the Program
during 2018, including the following:
(A) A summary of the data obtained by the Department of
Defense through assessments of the Program by participants in
the Program during 2018, including data obtained through the
assessments as follows:
(i) The Transition Goals Plans Success (GPS) Participant
Assessment.
(ii) Status of Forces Surveys (SOFS).
(B) A summary of the conclusions derived by the Secretary
of Defense from the data described in subparagraph (A).
(4) Such recommendations for improvements to the Transition
Assistance Program as the Secretary of Defense considers
appropriate in light of the data described by paragraph
(3)(A) and the conclusions described by paragraph (3)(B),
including recommendations for such legislative or
administrative action as the Secretary considers appropriate
to carry out such improvements.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
Trump-Kim Summit
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am glad we are making such great
progress on the Defense authorization bill. I know some additional work
needs to be done. I wanted to come to the floor and comment briefly on
the historic meeting that occurred this last week with North Korean
officials in Singapore.
President Trump, Secretary of State Pompeo, National Security Advisor
Bolton, and the rest of the American delegation are to be congratulated
for having this meeting. It was a historic first step, and I applaud
President Trump for taking it. But I reiterate: It was a first step.
To me, it reminds me of boxers entering the ring and touching gloves
before the fight begins. It is a warmup for something longer and much
more difficult. We need to remain clear-eyed about who we are dealing
with and not assume that there isn't hard work to be done.
As one commentator recently put it, North Korean duplicity is normal.
We need to remind ourselves of our own history of negotiating with
North Korea and our counterpart's record of saying one thing and simply
doing another.
The joint agreement signed by President Trump and Kim Jong Un set
broad goals whereby the United States made unspecified ``security
guarantees'' and Kim Jong Un recommitted to work toward the complete
denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. This agreement set the stage
for future engagements between our Secretary of State and his North
Korean counterpart.
By saying it is a first step--or, like two boxers, touching gloves
before the fight begins--I don't want to suggest in any way that this
was unimportant. I think it is dramatically important because I can't
think of any other place in the world where a misstep or a
miscalculation could lead to so much bloodshed, heartache, and
conflict. While we know that the military option must always be the
last option, diplomacy is always welcome and is facilitated by a strong
military and preparedness. But now the followup negotiations will be
led by Secretary Pompeo, and I have every confidence that he will ably
lead those.
He has said that the United States hopes to achieve ``major
disarmament'' of North Korea's nuclear arsenal during the next 2\1/2\
years but added emphatically that we will resume joint military
exercises with South Korea if the talks stall.
I think this represents the right approach. Aim for the best, while
remaining vigilant and preparing for all possible obstacles and
outcomes.
President Trump has said that sanctions against North Korea will
remain in effect until we are sure that nuclear weapons are no longer a
factor. I applaud this stance of maximum pressure. We shouldn't take
our foot off the gas at this point because that is what brought us to
this historic meeting in the first place.
I believe the United States should remain committed to the permanent,
verifiable, and irreversible dismantling of North Korea's weapons of
mass destruction, and I wish Secretary Pompeo luck as he continues
followup discussions in South Korea to help accomplish the goal that we
seek.
As Speaker Ryan said last week, President Trump has now ``disrupted
the status quo.'' I like the way he expressed that. President Trump--if
nothing--is good at disrupting the status quo, but here, when it comes
to North Korea, it is enormously positive when the status quo includes
a brutal dictatorship that commits flagrant human rights violations,
has a state-controlled economy, is starving its own people in order to
build nuclear weapons, and has shown contempt for international norms
and global diplomacy. I would say that the careful and cautious kind of
``disruption'' is exactly the right thing to do.
Our colleagues across the aisle seem to agree, and I am grateful for
that. Not everything needs to be a partisan issue here in Washington,
DC. In a statement, the junior Senator from Vermont called the summit
earlier this week ``a positive step in de-escalating tensions.'' I saw
that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper made
similar positive remarks. We will have to wait and see how this story
unfolds, but the President is to be commended, first for ensuring that
the summit took place at all and, then, for providing us with hope for
a path forward.
Farm Bill
Mr. President, another item of business today is the farm bill, which
I hope we will take up promptly here in the Senate. Fortunately, it
passed the Senate Agriculture Committee yesterday by a vote of 20-to-1.
Thanks to Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow, this bipartisan
compromise is a fair and equitable bill that does not favor one region
of the country over another. I have found in my time in the Senate that
agricultural issues and the farm bill don't pit Democrats against
Republicans so much as it pits one region of the country against
another, which makes it even more challenging--kind of like a Rubik's
Cube to figure out. But the near unanimous vote is a testament to the
collaboration and bipartisanship of the leaders of the committee. They
deserve the respect and appreciation of us all, especially those of us
who hail from States where agriculture has such a dominant presence,
like my State
[[Page S3937]]
and like the State of the Presiding Officer.
The farm bill is always a significant piece of legislation because it
helps to ensure that Americans, and many other people who depend upon
our food supply, enjoy access to the safest, most affordable, and most
reliable food supply in the world. We have to remember that in many
non-Western countries, you can't just walk up to a store and know that
what you want will be there on the shelf or that it will be affordable
or that it will be safe to even eat. The farm bill helps to ensure that
we continue to enjoy each of those things, knowing that we can walk
into a store, that we will find what we want, that it will be
affordable, and that it will be safe to eat.
This year's farm bill will be hugely impactful for farmers and
ranchers in my State of Texas. Among its most noteworthy provisions are
protecting seed cotton eligibility for the farm bill safety net. In the
supplemental funding bill we passed last February, we worked hard to
include this language, returning cotton to the safety net. This helped
cotton growers compete on a level playing field after years of
depressed prices.
So I want to thank Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow, as
well as the rest of the committee, for ensuring that this policy
continues and that cotton farmers have the long-term predictability
they deserve under the farm bill.
This year's bill also retains and strengthens the Price Loss Coverage
Program to help provide Texas producers with predictability throughout
unstable weather and natural disasters. That comes as great news this
year, especially, when we are all well aware that much of the Texas
Panhandle, as well as much of the rest of my State, remains under
severe, or even exceptional, drought conditions.
Additionally, the bill promotes animal health and reauthorizes
disease research programs, including a crucial one that will help the
U.S. Department of Agriculture research and contain the spread of
cattle fever tick. This is a parasite-carrying insect with the
potential to wipe out cattle herds and cause devastating financial
losses.
The research programs that we are promoting will help farmers and
ranchers all across the country. I know the senior Senator from
Minnesota, for example, has been concerned about avian influenza in her
State, and I am glad that we were able to work together to ensure that
these important research programs, with all of their implications, are
authorized in the bill.
On top of that, the farm bill will strengthen crop insurance and
other crop management tools and enhance incentive programs that help
the agriculture community conserve soil and water.
Finally, the bill encourages the U.S. Department of Agriculture
research partnerships, including those at Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and
Prairie View A&M, to promote more productive and profitable farming,
and it will assist Texas farmers and ranchers in placing and selling
their products in foreign markets.
I know Senator McConnell intends to take the farm bill up on the
floor as soon as possible, and I look forward to supporting its swift
passage.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hyde-Smith). The Senator from
Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside
the pending amendment in order to call up amendment No. 2304.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, this amendment very simply directs
the Postmaster General to issue a Forever Stamp to honor Gold Star
families who have lost a family member in combat. It is about as simple
and straightforward as an amendment to this immensely complex and
costly measure could be.
We are now in the second decade of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at
humongous costs to our Nation: In treasure, some $5 trillion, and in
lives, close to 7,000 Americans have perished.
On this Flag Day, and at the beginning of the Father's Day weekend, I
ask that this body approve an amendment that very simply would issue
and direct the Postmaster to issue a Forever Stamp commemorating the
sacrifice and loss of our Gold Star families.
All of us in this body have attended funerals. We have seen firsthand
the losses suffered by brave Americans, their families, their loved
ones, their friends, their dads, and their moms. All of us ought to be
joining in paying tribute to those families by directing the Postmaster
General to issue a Forever Stamp, which will be valid for whatever time
it is used.
There is precedent for this kind of stamp. In fact, I was reminded of
it by a friend and constituent, Joe Kaliko of Greenwich, CT, who was
inspired by his childhood stamp collection to suggest a stamp for Gold
Star families, permanently recognizing and commemorating these national
heroes. The stamp was issued in 1947 for Gold Star mothers. It expired
about a year thereafter. Since then, this Nation has never issued such
a stamp again, but there is no better time than now to recognize this
service and sacrifice.
This amendment is a very simple way to pay tribute to Americans who
have lost loved ones in wars that we have permitted and authorized to
go forward. Indeed, this defense bill has more than $700 billion, and a
good part of it will be in support of continued American service and
sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So my question to colleagues is: Who knows better about whether this
stamp ought to be issued, the Postmaster General or ourselves? Their
objection is that somehow there is bad precedent here in Congress
authorizing a Forever Stamp. We ought to be proud of that precedent
because this cause is different. Especially as we pass a measure that
will support continued war efforts in defense of our Nation, protecting
our national security, we ought to be especially mindful of the need to
remember and pay tribute to families who have sacrificed loved ones in
the service of our country.
I know that every one of my colleagues joins me in this feeling. I
hope that every one of my colleagues will join me in making that
feeling known to the Postmaster General. This amendment is one way of
doing it.
To all of us whose sons or daughters have served--as two of mine
have--during this period of war, we must be haunted by the idea that we
could be one of those Gold Star families. No doubt, some of my
colleagues have been touched directly and immediately--I would say
almost all of us--by friends, neighbors, or relatives who have suffered
these losses. Let us remember them in this special way, as the Nation
did after World War II. Let us remember the moms and the dads on
Father's Day, on Flag Day, and on every day.
I want to speak more generally about the National Defense
Authorization Act because it is a vital and profoundly significant step
toward sustaining our national defense and security.
In an era of unprecedented threats to our great Nation, the dangers
have never been greater. The need for this defense--particularly in
areas and domains where we are at a disadvantage, like cyber--is
critically important.
The United States is the strongest and greatest Nation in the history
of the world. Militarily, we have no peer. But other nations are
rapidly advancing in many of the spaces and domains where our advantage
was secure. In undersea warfare, in space and cyber and robotic combat,
we must invest.
We need to invest not only in the hardware but also in the people--in
the men and women who fight, who put their lives on the line, who wear
the uniform and, equally, in the men and women who make the arms and
equipment and weapons platforms they take into combat. They should
never have a fair fight. The defense industrial base requires skill and
training so they can make the submarines, helicopters, and Joint Strike
Fighters, which we do in Connecticut and in States around this country.
The men and women who make that stuff are equally important to our
national defense, and their skill training and jobs are vital to our
national security. I think we need to recognize that education and
training are vital parts of our defense, even though they may not be
included in this bill.
[[Page S3938]]
I was proud to author a provision which will ensure that survivors of
military sexual trauma, assault, and harassment are eligible for
``liberal consideration'' during discharge upgrade petition.
Throughout my service in the Senate, I have worked to improve
discharge upgrade provisions to ensure that servicemember petitions are
treated fairly and expeditiously. This policy change was a crucial next
step in reforming that discharge petition upgrade process.
Another provision I have led will require a zero tolerance policy
toward domestic violence in the military, a long overdue provision
which will ensure that offenders in the armed services are held
accountable and referred to the FBI.
In defending our Nation against Russian cyber attacks, a provision in
this year's NDAA will authorize USCYBERCOM to detect, deter, and defend
against Russian information and weapons cyber warfare campaigns that
target American Government officials. We should be doing vastly more
against cyber attacks from Russia and other adversaries around the
world, rather than coddling or cozying up to them, as this
administration seems to want to do repeatedly. We should be recognizing
they are attacking us, literally, daily in the cyber domain.
This legislation will invest in that defense industrial base, which
is so vital in Connecticut and elsewhere. I am proud that Connecticut
plays such a vital role in our defense industry. Five percent of our
country's defense contract spending is done in Connecticut, and every
dollar is critical to our national security, involving the production
of submarines, electric boats, and F-35 engines at Pratt & Whitney, and
helicopters at Sikorsky, notably the heavy lift CH-53. Submarines,
fighters, and helicopters are proudly produced in this arsenal of
democracy.
Groton, CT, is the submarine capital of the world. This bill will
support submarines and this important naval installation. The NDAA
includes nearly $3.8 billion for the Columbia-class program and $4.4
billion for two Virginia-class submarines. I fought to include an
additional $250 million in funding above the President's request for
over $3 billion in advance procurement of attack submarines to achieve
the Navy's goals of 66 attack submarines for the 355-ship Navy the
Nation needs. These submarines are not a luxury or convenience. They
are the stealthiest, most versatile, strongest weapons platform we
have, capable of delivering surveillance and special operators and
cruise missiles and other vital means of war.
I have also championed more than $10.4 billion in funding for 75 F-35
Joint Strike Fighters across the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps
Services for the only fifth-generation fighter in production. I am so
glad the administration is now supporting the F-35, after the President
expressed doubts at the beginning of this administration. The bill also
includes $1 billion for F-35 modernization and spares.
The 2019 NDAA includes very robust funding for helicopter production.
Sikorsky helicopters, made in Stratford, CT, have served our Nation for
decades. It will support collaboration involving the University of
Connecticut and the Navy, $25 million above the President's request in
research and development funding for warship partnerships.
As we consider these floor amendments, I want to emphasize one
amendment that I have filed concerning the current immigration crisis;
specifically, the predicament of unaccompanied minors.
In May, Attorney General Jeff Sessions declared that the Justice
Department would prosecute every person who illegally enters the
country and separate children from their parents. Previously, families
apprehended at the border were released as they waited for civil
deportation hearings, but this new, cruel policy will tear apart
countless families. It has already separated literally thousands of
children of immigrant families from their moms and, yes, on this
Father's Day, from their dads.
These heartless family-separation policies are made even more
inhumane with the announcement that the Trump administration plans to
house these immigrant children, who have been separated from their
parents, on military bases. The only reason the Trump administration is
even considering detaining children on military installations is
because the number they are tearing away from their moms and dads
exceeds the facilities they have available right now. The Department of
Health and Human Services has already visited four military
installations--both in Texas and Arkansas--to assess whether they can
be used to shelter children.
Just this week, we also heard that the Trump administration is
looking to construct ``tent cities''--yes, ``tent cities''--along the
southern border to house unaccompanied migrant children.
This practice ought to make us ashamed and embarrassed as Americans.
It is appalling. I am ashamed that the United States is not only
actively destroying families and indefinitely detaining children but
also using military bases to do this. Turning military installations
into detention camps is a disservice to our brave military men and
women. Using our military installations to in effect imprison children
separated from their parents mocks their purpose and disrespects our
brave men and women in uniform who rightly use them in the defense of
our Nation.
My amendment in the NDAA would explicitly prohibit the Department of
Defense from using any funding authorized in this defense spending
package to revise or rebuild or renovate military bases to house these
undocumented, unaccompanied minors.
I urge my colleagues to speak out about this disgusting and dangerous
policy--not only the separation of children from their moms and dads
but also the use of our cherished military bases for that purpose.
I am also proud to have worked with my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle to stand up to the threat posed by two Chinese
telecommunications companies--Huawei and ZTE. This bipartisan
opposition to their continued business is a testament to our ability to
work across the aisle in defense of our Nation.
Our military and intelligence leaders have repeatedly warned that ZTE
and Huawei threaten the security of our networks due to their close
ties to the Chinese Government. They have also violated our sanctions,
broken our law, and provided equipment and services to rogue regimes,
such as Iran and North Korea.
President Trump and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross may be willing to
overlook ZTE's track record, but Congress will not do so. Our
amendment, which has been included in the managers' package, will
prohibit ZTE and Huawei technologies and equipment from entering the
networks of the U.S. Government and its contractors for the safety and
security of all of us.
It is not just an intellectual point; it is a practical security
measure. These two companies are instruments of Chinese influence, and
they are peddling that influence throughout the world. We will ensure
through this provision that these two telecommunications companies
beholden to the Chinese Government are not a part of our communications
system in this great Nation.
I am proud to support this NDAA.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. PETERS. Madam President, the Constitution charges Congress with
the authority and the responsibility to raise and support armies and
provide and maintain a navy. It is a responsibility this body takes
very seriously. That is why for over 50 years the National Defense
Authorization Act has been signed into law each and every year. It is
the only piece of legislation with this long history of consistently
being passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. This
history is a reflection of the importance of the policies and funding
authorizations within the bill.
I am particularly proud of what this bill includes to support
Michigan's important contributions to our national defense. For
example, the 127th Wing at Selfridge Air National Guard Base flies the
A-10 and in 2015 deployed in the fight against ISIS. As a result of
their outstanding performance, the 127th Wing won the Spaatz Trophy as
the top flying unit in the Air National Guard,
[[Page S3939]]
as well as the Meritorious Unit Award following their deployment.
The A-10 is without question a great airplane, but it is also getting
old. The A-10 fleet will require wing replacements in order to continue
to fly those important missions. That is why I worked to include an
authorization for an additional $65 million for A-10 wing replacement,
bringing the bill's total investment in new A-10 wings to over $144
million. These funds will help pay for new wings for a full squadron's
worth of A-10 aircraft, which are vital for close air support and
combat search and rescue missions. Our troops on the ground know that
when they hear the iconic roar of an A-10, help is on the way. A-10
pilots and maintainers are proud of their mission, as they should be.
This bill works to ensure that these aircraft will keep flying.
The legislation also includes an additional $70 million for the next-
generation combat vehicle prototype. The Detroit Arsenal in Warren will
be the home of the Army's cross-functional team for the next-generation
combat vehicle, reporting to the Army Futures Command.
This important work on developing the future of the Army's ground
vehicles will continue to occur in Southeast Michigan, taking advantage
of many of the automotive manufacturers and suppliers that are shaping
the future of mobility.
Just as the commercial automotive industry is developing connected
and autonomous vehicles that will change the future of transportation
forever, the next-generation combat vehicle and other concepts
developed by the Army's Tank Automotive Research, Development and
Engineer Center, TARDEC, will change the future of warfare.
All self-driving vehicles, whether they are developed for the
military or for the auto industry, rely on artificial intelligence and
machine learning. Artificial intelligence powers autonomous systems but
can also reform the business practices of the Pentagon. AI can help
with personnel management and purchasing practices and find insights
and efficiencies that are difficult to find unless you can manipulate
and analyze the Department's massive amounts of data.
Artificial intelligence will have an enormous impact on our economy,
and that is why it is essential that the United States make significant
investments in AI development and that we lead the world in developing
this capability. We know that our competitors are taking AI very
seriously. China has developed a national strategy to develop its AI
capabilities, and Vladimir Putin has said that whoever leads in AI will
rule the world. The United States must lead the way on artificial
intelligence to best shape the future economy and our country, to
strengthen our national security, and to address the moral and ethical
questions that arise with any new technology.
Without question, the United States needs our own coordinated
strategy on AI. That is why I wrote a provision in the bill that
designates a senior official for artificial intelligence at the
Department of Defense and cuts redtape, letting that person utilize all
of the flexibilities Congress has provided to the Pentagon.
It is also important that we take steps to protect American ingenuity
and innovation generally. That is why I also authored a provision in
the bill that will allow the Department of Defense to require that
companies and researchers receiving defense contracts not share new
technologies and capabilities developed with any foreign entity, and if
they do, they will lose the rights to that intellectual property. This
will help ensure that investments made by DARPA and the DOD labs are
not shared with our competitors.
Additionally, this bill also includes reform to the Committee on
Foreign Investment in the United States, known as CFIUS. CFIUS works to
ensure that investments in U.S. companies made by foreign investors do
not threaten national security by providing other countries with access
to the crown jewels of U.S. technology.
In closing, Madam President, I wish to point out that this bill is
named for Chairman John McCain. We all know his presence is missed on
the Armed Services Committee, as well as throughout the entire Senate.
I wish him a speedy recovery. I am keeping him and his family in my
prayers.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
amendment no. 2276
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the
amendment the senior Senator from Arkansas has offered to the H.R.
5515, the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA.
Senator Boozman's amendment is a thoughtful one. It proposes to solicit
information from the Department of Defense to help us carefully think
through our response to the changed strategic situation in Europe.
Russia's military aggression and Military incursions in Georgia,
Ukraine, and elsewhere have made it abundantly clear that we are no
longer in the security environment that provided the context for the
commitments we made in the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act.
The United States and Poland have a long record of highly effective
cooperation in military matters. Poland has made important
contributions to operations in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, and an
American-led NATO battle group in Poland is playing an important role
in reinforcing NATO's eastern flank today.
Still, a decision to permanently deploy U.S. forces to the territory
of even such a stalwart ally should not be taken lightly. This
amendment wisely requests that the Department of Defense provide its
assessment of a number of factors that we will need to weigh when
deciding whether to take such a step, including the reactions we should
anticipate from other allies, possible responses by Russia, and more
practical considerations including cost and timing.
Poland needs no reminder about the external threats it faces. After
all, it borders Ukraine. However, Poland faces an enemy within:
democratic backsliding, which plays into Vladimir Putin's hands as he
aims to undermine democratic values across Europe.
Since 2015, the Polish Government has challenged constitutionalism,
eroded checks and balances, and indulged in historical revisionism. The
breadth and depth of the government's actions led the European
Commission to conclude in December that Poland's ``executive and
legislative branches have been systematically enabled to politically
interfere in the composition, powers, administration and functioning of
the judicial branch.''
I discussed these concerns in a meeting with Polish Deputy Foreign
Minister Marek Magierowski in February, including a controversial law,
introduced on the eve of International Holocaust Remembrance Day, which
may actually impede research, scholarship, and journalism about the
Holocaust. The Department of State rightly observed that this law might
have repercussions for ``Poland's strategic interests and
relationships--including with the United States and Israel. The
resulting divisions that may arise among our allies benefit only our
rivals.''
Independence of the judiciary will take another hit on July 3, when a
new law will go into effect forcing the early retirement of up to 40
percent of Poland's 120-member supreme court, the reintroduction of the
Soviet-era feature of ``lay judges,'' and make final judgments subject
to ``extraordinary appeals.'' These developments--very concerning both
for Poland and the region--should be part of the administration's
dialogue with Warsaw on comprehensive transatlantic security.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I rise to highlight an issue concerning
the industrial base that supports the strategic TRIAD. Currently the
Air Force is developing the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent or GBSD.
This will be the Nation's new land-based intercontinental ballistic
missile and will replace the venerable Minuteman Three. Nearly 50 years
ago, when Minuteman was built, there were five companies capable of
producing large solid rocket motors. The industrial base that produces
large solid rocket motors for the Nation's strategic TRIAD has shrunk
to two, and if the GBSD program is not handled carefully, it could soon
shrink to one. With each new missile likely to have three large solid
rocket motors, it is important to maintain multiple companies that can
produce them.
This problem was clearly identified in April 2018 when the
Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment released the
Department of Defense's Annual Industrial Capabilities Report. I would
encourage my
[[Page S3940]]
colleagues to go read the entire report for themselves. The report can
be found at http://www.businessdefense.gov/Portals/51/Documents/
Resources/2017%20AIC%20RTC%2005-17-2018%20-
%20Public%20Release.pdf?ver=2018-05-17-224631-340.
The report is quite lengthy; however, I would like to read one
paragraph from page 85, which accurately synopsizes the lack of
oversight of the large solid rocket motor industrial base:
``Maintaining a healthy and competitive solid rocket motor industrial
base is also of concern to the Department. Solid rocket motors for
tactical missiles are produced in a nearly even split between the two
domestic suppliers, Orbital ATK and Aerojet Rocketdyne. However, in the
very near future all the large solid rocket motors for strategic
missiles and space launch will be produced by Orbital ATK.
Aerojet Rocketdyne has managed to maintain their large solid rocket
motor capability for now with production of the boosters for the United
Launch Alliance (ULA) Atlas V space launch vehicle, and small
development investments from the GBSD program. But ULA has chosen
Orbital ATK's boosters to replace Aerojet Rocketdyne's on Atlas and
future launch vehicles, leaving Aerojet Rocketdyne with no large solid
rocket motor production. Aerojet Rocketdyne has chosen to close their
Sacramento large solid rocket motor production facility.
While they have plans to reconstitute this capability at their Camden
facility, they may not do so if they are not part of the winning team
for GBSD, producing at least one solid rocket motor stage. This
potentially leaves the United States with a single large solid rocket
motor supplier, which can lead to cost increases due to lack of
competition, decreases in internal research and development efforts,
and risk of security of supply if a catastrophic accident should
occur.''
I am very concerned about what the Under Secretary has revealed in
this report. I believe that the Nation must avoid a monopoly provider
situation for the very reasons stated in the report. As a member of the
Appropriations Committee, I believe that we have a duty to be proper
stewards of the defense industrial base, both for our current
warfighters and for those who will follow. This is an issue that I will
continue to monitor, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. PETERS. 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. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that
notwithstanding rule XXII, all postcloture time expire at 1:45 p.m.
today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. For the information of Senators, this sets up a series
of votes this afternoon. We should expect three to four votes during
this series.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Stephen Michael Gleason Congressional Gold Medal Bill
Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I come to the floor to honor
Washington State's finest, Spokane native and Washington State
University Cougar Steve Gleason. I know my Senate colleagues will be
here later this afternoon to do the same. My colleagues from Louisiana
and Washington have introduced legislation to award Steve the
Congressional Gold Medal, Congress's highest honor. I look forward to
seeing this legislation pass later today by unanimous consent.
Many Washingtonians remember Steve as a standout student athlete
whose dedication in the classroom earned him repeated academic honors
and whose dominance on the football field and baseball diamond set
records and dazzled fans. Everybody back home is pulling for Steve.
Instead of Steve going to the Seahawks, he signed with the New
Orleans Saints. He quickly became a fan favorite for his work ethic and
the joy he brought to the game.
In his first game back under the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina,
he blocked a punt that was returned for a touchdown. It is a play I
know Saints' fans around the country still remember fondly.
It is not Steve's athletic feats at Washington State University or in
the Superdome that make him worth recognition, it is his perseverance,
determination, his unbreakable spirit in the face of ALS, and his
dogged advocacy for people who have been impacted by this disease.
That is why Steve is such an inspiration to the people of Spokane,
throughout the State of Washington, and across the United States.
Through his public advocacy and collaboration with Congress, Steve
helped pass the Steve Gleason Act, which ensures that people with ALS
and other degenerative diseases can access speech-generating devices,
whether at home or in a health facility.
His leadership with the Gleason Initiative Foundation brought
together the largest ALS research project in the world, and his work
has helped us improve the lives of countless individuals who have been
impacted by this disease.
We could not be more proud of him, and that is why we are here today,
to make sure this legislation gives that appropriate recognition. Steve
Gleason said: ``Our potential is not contained in our physical bodies,
but rather in our mind and in our spirit.''
I so appreciate all he has done to help fight this disease. He has
been such a leader in communicating the needs of those with ALS and
showing the progress we all can make. I thank the Presiding Officer.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
amendments be called up en bloc: amendments Nos. 2289, 2295, 2300,
2322, 2365, 2440, 2441, 2464, 2486, 2509, 2544, 2550, 2579, 2587, 2589,
2598, 2600, 2611, 2617, 2623, 2633, 2634, 2653, 2654, 2686, 2691, 2695,
2721, 2723, 2729, 2737, 2742, 2755, 2758, 2768, 2794, 2799, 2800, 2810,
2815, 2818, 2830, 2862, 2863, and 2887. I further ask consent that
these amendments be considered en bloc; that it be in order for the Lee
amendment No. 2366 to be called up, and that there be up to an hour of
debate on the amendments to run concurrently, and that following the
use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on the en bloc
amendments and the Lee amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and
I will object.
My colleague from Utah, who is a very smart man on the Judiciary
Committee, like I am--I don't know if I am smart, but we are on the
same committee--we are actually making progress here.
Just briefly, Senator Cruz has had an amendment that says if someone
is suspected of being part of an enemy force, they will have a hearing
to strip their citizenship, which avoids the problem Senator Lee and I
have. He is trying to combine that with his amendment.
Unfortunately, there is no ability to hold them as an enemy combatant
during that process--and maybe we can work that out later--so I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Madam President, I appreciate the efforts made by my friend
and distinguished colleague, the Senator from South Carolina. I wish to
speak concerning the purpose for my making this request. I do so with
great respect for this body, for its customs, its traditions, its
rules, and for each of its Members.
At the same time, it is imperative that we point out what is
happening. We have a bill--one of the most consequential pieces of
legislation we vote on each year--the National Defense Authorization
Act. We have been effectively shut out of a meaningful amendment
process, one that has historically marked this body as one of its
distinguishing characteristics; one that has historically helped this
body to refer to itself as the world's greatest deliberative
legislative body.
We have tested that in recent months and years as Members have
started objecting with increasing frequency to
[[Page S3941]]
anyone getting a vote on any amendment they don't like, that they
object to. The amendment at issue is based on a bipartisan piece of
legislation called the Due Process Guarantee Act. I am the lead
sponsor, along with my lead cosponsor, the senior Senator from
California, Mrs. Feinstein.
The purpose of this amendment is simple. It is to make sure the U.S.
Government has no authority and claims no authority to indefinitely
detain U.S. citizens apprehended on U.S. soil. Most people listening to
this--anyone listening to it--would think, why on Earth would we need
legislation stating something so obvious? The fact is, we shouldn't.
It is the inexorable command of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth
Amendments, not to mention other statutory and constitutional
protections, that the indefinite detention without charge, without
trial, without access to a jury, without access to counsel--these kinds
of things are anathema to our way of life, to our constitutional system
of laws.
Why then do we need this amendment? Well, about 7 years ago, toward
the end of 2011, when Congress was considering, then ultimately passed,
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Congress
included in that legislation a provision, section 2021 of that bill,
that purported to give the U.S. Government that authority in certain
circumstances.
In other words, there were circumstances based on the accusations
against you, as an American citizen, that you could be apprehended on
U.S. soil and held indefinitely without charge or trial. This violates
everything we know about our system of government. It violates
everything we know about the laws of any decent nation--any nation that
recognizes the fundamental, essentially eternal dignity of the human
soul. This is not something we do in the United States.
I raised objections to it at the time. I tried to fix it at the time.
It didn't happen. The following year, late in 2012, when we were
addressing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013,
toward the end of 2012, I introduced an amendment that is substantially
identical to the one I am trying to seek a vote on today. It passed by
a bipartisan supermajority vote. There were 67 Members who voted for
this. That is more than a majority; more than the three-fifths it
needed to close debate. In fact, it is equal to the sum required when
you are proposing a constitutional amendment out of this body or trying
to override a Presidential veto. That is what we had.
For reasons that escape me, that provision was removed in the
Conference Committee when the Conference Committee was trying to
recognize competing House and Senate versions of the bill. In the
subsequent 6 years, I tried repeatedly to get a vote on this amendment
again, recognizing that it passed overwhelmingly and that it was
inexplicably removed from the bill during the Conference Committee.
Promise after promise has been made to help me get a vote on that
amendment, which ever since hasn't panned out.
We have an opportunity to consider it here. Yesterday, something
interesting happened. Yesterday, there was a motion to table this
amendment. In other words, there were some Members of this body who
didn't want to consider it at all so they made a motion to table. When
you table something in the Senate, you are setting it aside, setting it
on the table, saying: We are not going to address that. Do you know
what happened? There were 68 people who voted against that motion to
table. In other words, 68 people voted that we should have a vote on
this amendment. That is more than a majority, more than the three-
fifths or 60 needed to close debate. That is more than the threshold
required to propose a constitutional amendment or override a
Presidential veto.
Why then are we not discussing this? Why are we not voting on it so
we have a number of amendments? You may have heard me reciting a series
of about three dozen four-digit numbers, each referring to a separate
amendment being proposed for a so-called managers' package.
If we are going to further amend this bill, we need to consider those
with a vote, and we need a vote on my amendment. Yesterday, 68 Members
of this body agreed that we should be considering this.
Ask any American you know--your friends, your neighbors, I don't care
what State they live in, what party they identify with, where they go
to church or synagogue, whether they are believers in God, regardless
of their background, their socioeconomic status, what they do for a
living--you ask people from almost any background, and I can almost
guarantee you they are going to call this a no-brainer.
Why would we not want to remove a pernicious provision from a piece
of Federal law that passed a few years ago, purporting to authorize the
Federal Government to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens, without charge
or trial or jury or counsel, based merely on the nature of the
allegations against them? This is wrong, and the wrongness of that
provision, which could be corrected by my amendment, is compounded
still by the refusal of this body, by the refusal of 1 Member of this
body, 1 Member out of 100, to allow us to get a vote on this. We must
vote on this.
If we are going to lay claim to any type of status as the world's
greatest deliberative legislative body, we have to start voting on
amendments again. We have steadily, sadly, tragically relinquished that
right by acquiescence.
As of today, I say no more. It has to stop. Let us vote on this. We
will continue to push this. The laws of the United States and the
principles that govern the behavior of decent people everywhere dictate
we should correct this error in the law.
I implore my colleagues, I implore my distinguished colleague, the
senior Senator from South Carolina, let us vote on this amendment.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The Senator from Montana.
Flag Day
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, Last year, just a few miles down the road
in Virginia, a disabled World War II veteran, Richard Cohen, woke up to
his burned American flag on his doorstep. Let me say that again.
Richard Cohen, who was wounded by German machinegun fire while
defending our freedom in World War II, woke up to his American flag
desecrated on his doorstep.
Unfortunately, this is just one of many astonishing stories of our
American flag being ruined. In fact, since 2014, there have been 50
known offensive acts of American flag burning. That is 50 times that
our symbol of freedom--that thousands of Americans have paid the
ultimate sacrifice for--was destroyed.
That is why I am here today, Flag Day, to speak about my
constitutional amendment that would prohibit the burning of the
American flag. The colors of the flag--red, white, and blue--symbolize
valor, purity, and perseverance. The American flag represents our
Nation's history and the character of our Nation's Founding Fathers.
Beginning with those Founding Fathers, the American flag represents
the patriotism and dedication of men and women who fought to defend our
Nation's freedom when our country was founded more than 200 years ago
today. Thousands of brave and selfless men and women have given their
lives in sacrifice and service to our country and in defense of our
flag.
That is why I have introduced this constitutional amendment to
provide Congress with the authority to prohibit burning of the American
flag. Our flag should be protected in honor of the countless American
servicemembers who have paid the ultimate sacrifice to defend it.
It is no wonder, by overwhelming majorities, our veterans and
organizations like the American Legion support this because they have
been on the frontlines defending our freedom.
Our veterans are the best example of why America is still the
greatest country on Earth and why our freedoms and our liberties are
worth defending.
In the words of that World War II veteran Richard Cohen, ``I served
under that flag and I bled for it, really, and it was a personal
affront.''
The American flag has been a symbol of hope, a symbol of freedom for
centuries, and it ought to be respected. On this day, Flag Day, may God
continue to bless our troops, our veterans, and this great United
States of America.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
[[Page S3942]]
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HOEVEN. 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. HOEVEN. Mr. President, there is a reason we have passed the
National Defense Authorization Act every year for the past 57 years,
and that is because it is vital for the men and women who take
responsibility for defending our country. Passing the Defense
authorization bill is one of the most important things we do in this
Chamber, and I look forward to passing the bill that we have before us
out of the Senate and getting it through conference and signed into law
very soon.
I want to start by briefly thanking the bill managers for including a
number of my amendments, but one I will mention that they have added to
the managers' package is an amendment that requires the Air Force and
the National Nuclear Security Administration to submit a joint progress
report every 6 months on their efforts to develop a new nuclear cruise
missile capability. This will help ensure that their efforts are
synchronized and that we stay on schedule. The nuclear cruise missile
is an important part of our deterrent, and I am grateful for the
committee's willingness to work with me on this amendment and include
it in the managers' package.
This year's legislation certainly contains its share of noteworthy
provisions. I will not be able to mention them all, but I do want to
talk about some of them here today. For example, it authorizes a 2.6-
percent pay raise for members of the armed services, which is the
highest pay raise we have been able to include in more than a decade.
It is something they very much deserve.
Thanks to the good work of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the
bill also takes important steps to modernize the personnel system to
provide greater career flexibility and make sure we can meet the needs
of the professionals who serve across our magnificent Armed Forces.
In addition to personnel matters, I am pleased to note that the
legislation supports our Nation's strategic priorities as reflected in
the National Security Strategy, the National Defense Strategy, and the
Nuclear Posture Review. Those documents rightly point out that we face
emerging challenges from Russia and China. While we hope to avoid
confrontation with these nations, there is no question we are in
competition with them, and this year's NDAA helps align our forces to
make sure we maintain our competitive advantage.
This legislation also authorizes significant numbers of fighter
aircraft and additional numbers of submarines and surface ships. The
reason we are able to do that is that we, in the budget agreement this
year, provided more funding authority for our military, which, again,
is something we very much needed to do.
This legislation also fully authorizes the nuclear modernization
program aimed at sustaining and modernizing all three legs of the
nuclear triad, as well as extending the service lives of our nuclear
warheads. Modernizing our nuclear forces is extremely important for our
national security, as well as to my home State. In my State, the Minot
Air Force Base is home to two of the three legs of the triad--bombers
and ICBMs. These men and women of the Minot Air Force Base are on the
frontlines of vital missions, and updating our nuclear force will help
ensure they continue to fulfill this vital role in coming decades. In
just the past few months, I have visited that base, and we have had
ongoing deployments to the Korean Peninsula, based TDY out of Guam, as
well as to the Middle East, taking an important role in what is going
on in Iraq and Syria.
I also want to highlight in this legislation the Air Force's plan to
replace the engines on the venerable B-52 aircraft, something I have
worked on quite a bit. We expect that aircraft, which has been a
workhorse for us for many years, to remain a key element of not only
our nuclear deterrent but also an important component of our
conventional bomber force for decades to come. New engines will help
keep it flying and ensure that it will continue to fulfill those vital
roles.
The legislation also provides for significant investment in emerging
technologies that will position our forces to remain the most capable
military on Earth, including investments in hypersonic weapons and
directed energy weapons.
Another base in my State, the Grand Forks Air Force Base, has the
Global Hawk mission. This legislation makes sure we continue support
for the Global Hawk, which is an unmanned aircraft that provides an
incredibly important role in ISR--intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance--which is a very important part of our global reach.
This legislation also authorizes the annual military construction
program, with an Army readiness center in Fargo, ND, and a helicopter
operations facility at the Minot Air Force Base representing two
examples of military construction projects made possible through this
legislation. Again, these are things I have worked hard on, as well as
other support for our National Guard in my State and across the
country.
This bill includes language that provides higher allowances for Guard
members on lengthy or numerous deployments. It also addresses Federal
delays in recognizing promotions for National Guard and Reserve
members, who play such an important role in our Armed Forces.
There are too many provisions to go through all of them, obviously,
but the point is we need to pass this legislation for our men and women
in uniform. We have the finest armed services in the world, and they
deserve our careful and deliberate attention to ensure they have the
benefits they deserve, the tools they need, and the support that we owe
them.
Again, I look forward to completing work on this legislation, and
then, as a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee--and I am on
the Defense Appropriations Committee as well--I will work hard to make
sure we have the appropriate funding to go with the authorization we
provide in this legislation to make absolutely sure we support our
incredible men and women in uniform. We owe them so much, and it is an
honor and privilege to work on their behalf.
With that, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BOOZMAN. 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. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I want to take a second to thank Senator
Inhofe and Senator Reed and their staffs for all of their hard work on
getting us to this point on the Defense authorization bill, which is so
very important.
Through the European Deterrence Initiative, we have made important
progress in preparing U.S. forces and allies to address Russian threats
to American interests and the international order that protects them.
I was just in Poland visiting U.S. forces with Senators Inhofe,
Capito, and Enzi. We saw firsthand the work they are doing to
preposition equipment and to establish the necessary footprint to
sustain operations.
The NDAA contains a provision that would require the Secretary of
Defense to conduct an assessment of the feasibility and advisability of
permanently stationing a U.S. Army brigade combat team in Poland. This
amendment would require a report to accompany the assessment, detailing
the requirements for combat enablers to deter aggression by Russia and
to execute the Department of Defense's contingency plans. Combat
enablers are the essential noncombat force that helps to maintain our
defense posture around the globe.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment as the Senate
continues to play its oversight role to ensure that we defend our
interests and our allies in Europe against Russian aggression.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
[[Page S3943]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2273 Withdrawn
Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw
amendment No. 2273.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 2273) was withdrawn.
Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the votes
following the first vote in this series be 10 minutes in length.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the
Senate for 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2885
Mr. REED. Mr. President, the Reed amendment would name a fellowship
program on behalf of Senator John McCain. I can't think of anything
more fitting, in addition to the naming of this bill, than naming this
fellowship program on behalf of Senator McCain.
I hope all of my colleagues will join me in voting unanimously for
Senator McCain's fellowship program.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time
has expired.
The question now occurs on agreeing to amendment No. 2885, offered by
the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
Moran).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 125 Leg.]
YEAS--97
Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Harris
Hassan
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Jones
Kaine
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Shaheen
Shelby
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NOT VOTING--3
Duckworth
McCain
Moran
The amendment (No. 2885) was agreed to.
Vote on Amendment No. 2276
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to
amendment No. 2276, offered by the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe,
for the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Boozman.
The amendment (No. 2276) was agreed to.
Vote on Amendment No. 2282, as Modified, as Amended
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to
amendment No. 2282, offered by the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe,
as modified and amended.
The amendment (No. 2282), as modified, 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 senior assistant 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 Calendar No.
442, H.R. 5515, an act to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2019 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, Mike Crapo, Deb Fischer, Mike Rounds,
Roger F. Wicker, Ted Cruz, Cindy Hyde-Smith, James
Lankford, Marco Rubio, James M. Inhofe, John Cornyn,
Roy Blunt, Thom Tillis, James E. Risch, John Barrasso,
Cory Gardner, John Thune.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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.
5515, an act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2019 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 Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
Moran).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth)
and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 81, nays 15, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 126 Leg.]
YEAS--81
Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hassan
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Isakson
Jones
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Shaheen
Shelby
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Whitehouse
Wicker
Young
NAYS--15
Corker
Durbin
Feinstein
Flake
Gillibrand
Harris
Johnson
Kennedy
Lee
Markey
Merkley
Paul
Sanders
Warren
Wyden
NOT VOTING--4
Duckworth
Manchin
McCain
Moran
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 81, the nays are
15.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The Senator from Louisiana.
____________________