[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 91 (Thursday, June 9, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3677-S3715]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                           Amendment No. 4549

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to make some brief remarks with 
respect to the Reed amendment that is pending, before our vote. Senator 
Mikulski would like to also, and I note the chairman is here. But I ask 
unanimous consent that when I finish my brief remarks, Senator Mikulski 
be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, we have had a very extensive and very thoughtful 
debate about the underlying amendment by Senator McCain to increase OCO 
spending by $18 billion strictly for Department of Defense operations 
and functions, and those are very critical and very important.
  There have been two principles we have followed over the last several 
years when it comes to trying to push back the effects of 
sequestration. Those principles have been that the security of the 
United States is significantly affected by the Department of Defense's 
operations, but not exclusively. Indeed, there are many functions 
outside the parameters of the Department of Defense that are absolutely 
critical and essential to the protection of the American people at home 
and abroad: the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, the CDC. So 
that has been one of the principles. The other principle we recognize 
is that that in lifting these temporary limits, we have to do it on an 
equal basis.
  What the amendment Senator Mikulski and I have offered does is 
embrace

[[Page S3678]]

these two principles. We would add an additional $18 billion to the 
chairman's $18 billion. That would encompass the broader view of 
national security, and do so in a way that I think is very sensible, 
and allow us to go forward as we have in the past.
  All of us recognize the extraordinary sacrifices made by the men and 
women of our Armed Forces and the fact that they continue to serve as 
the frontline of the defense in so many different aspects. But we also 
recognize that defending our interests means agencies outside the 
Department of Defense--the State Department, Homeland Security--that 
have absolutely critical and indispensable roles in our national 
security.
  Reflecting on the comments before about the potential for incidents 
both here and abroad, if we go back to 9/11, that was not a result of a 
failure to have trained Army brigades or marine regiments or aircraft 
carriers at sea; that was a deficiency in the screening of passengers 
getting on airplanes; that was a failure to connect intelligence that 
one FBI office had that was not shared effectively. Those threats to 
the United States will not be directly remedied even as we increase 
resources to the Department of Defense. Resources have to go to these 
other agencies as well. I think that is something we all recognize, and 
that is what is at the heart of what we are doing.
  In addition, over the last decade we have seen a host of other 
threats, particularly cyber threats, which were rudimentary back in 
2001, 2002, and 2003. Now we see them as ubiquitous--not rudimentary--
and threatening and with an increasing sort of sophistication.
  I recall that in a hearing Senator Collins and I had with the 
Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, we asked the IG: What is the biggest issue that you think 
is facing your Departments right now? Both said it is the issue of 
cyber security--protecting the data we have, protecting the records we 
have, protecting ourselves from being an unwitting conduit into even 
more sensitive government systems.
  So within our amendment, we propose significant resources for cyber 
protections throughout the Federal Government--Homeland Security, 
Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, et cetera. 
These are essential, and I think the American people understand that.
  We also understand that our infrastructure is critical to our 
economic well-being and our economic growth. Part of our dilemma going 
forward and one of the reasons we are locked in this sequestration 
battle is that unless we are growing our economy, we will be 
continually faced with difficult challenges about what we fund, how we 
fund it, how we provide the revenue to meet these obligations. One of 
the surest ways to increase our growth is to invest in our 
infrastructure.
  I think what we are proposing makes sense in two fundamental ways. It 
recognizes--as I think everyone does--that our national security is not 
exclusively related to the programs and functions of the Department of 
Defense and that our national security is a function not just of our 
military, intelligence, and other related agencies, but the vitality 
and strength of the country, the ability to grow and to afford these 
investments in defense, in homeland security, and others. We make it 
clear. We make it clear in this legislation that that is our proposal. 
And the stakes are clear: We want to go ahead and support a broad-
ranged increase in resources.
  The final point I will make is that this is all in the shadow of the 
ultimate issue, which is getting rid of sequestration--not just for one 
part of the government but for the entire government. If we don't 
address that next year, we are going to be in an extraordinarily dire 
situation.
  With that, I ask my colleagues sincerely and very fervently to 
support the Reed-Mikulski amendment. I think that would put us on the 
track to true national security.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rubio). The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, how much time does our side have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no divided time. We have a vote 
scheduled at 11:15 a.m. but no divided time.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Well, I will be quick in my remarks.
  First, I just want to comment about real leadership and how blessed 
we are to have what we have. I compliment both the chairman and the 
ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. The chairman, Senator 
McCain, is a graduate of the Naval Academy and is a well-known and 
well-respected war hero who for his entire life has stood for defending 
America. Our ranking member, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, is a 
West Point graduate and a paratrooper, so he knows what it is like to 
make big leaps for the defense of the country. They have done their 
best to do a bill. They find that their budget allocation is very 
tight, and we understand that.
  What we seek here is parity in what the gentleman from Arizona, 
Senator McCain, is offering as his amendment, and he has spoken 
thoroughly and eloquently about it. Senator Reed has spoken eloquently 
about how not all national security is in the Department of Defense, 
and we need more money for the State Department, Homeland Security. 
There are others in our part of the bill, the nondefense discretionary 
part, related to research and development and also investments in 
health and education.
  There are those who would say: Well, Senator Mikulski, you know what 
Senator McCain wants to do.
  Yes.
  You know what Senator Reed wants to do. Not all defense is in DOD.
  Yes.
  But aren't you being squishy?
  No, I am not being squishy at all when we talk about the needed 
nondefense discretionary for research and others.
  Very quickly, when we won World War II, Roosevelt made it clear that 
it was our arsenal of democracy that enabled one of the greatest 
fighting machines ever assembled to be successful. We need to continue 
to have an arsenal of democracy. That arsenal of democracy will always 
be cutting edge and maintain its qualitative edge because of what we 
will do with research and development, often in civilian agencies, 
whether it is the Department of Energy that will produce more trucks, 
whether it is the National Science Foundation working with others to 
make us even more advanced in computational capacity so that we have 
the best computers to defend us, not only in cyber security but in 
others. There is a new kind of arsenal of democracy, and we need to 
have a strong economy and we need to have continued research and 
development to maintain our qualitative edge.
  Let's go to the wonderful men and women who serve our military. Only 
2 percent of the population signs up, but when they sign up, boy, are 
we proud of them. We share that on both sides of the aisle. But what 
GEN Martin Dempsey, the former head of the Joint Chiefs--himself a 
decorated hero--said to me was this: Senator Mikulski, out of every 
four people who want to enlist in our military, only one is taken 
because only one will be fit for duty. One category can't pass because 
they can't pass the physical fitness. They have too many physical 
problems.
  Well, why is that?
  Then the other won't be taken by the military because they fail the 
literacy and the math--a failure of education. Third, there is another 
category because of issues with either addiction or emotional problems.
  So we need to look at our total population. We need a totally strong 
America to have a strong defense.
  I know some people say what I want to do and some of my colleagues 
want to do--we not only want to maintain parity in the Budget Act 
consistent with our votes and our principles, but look at that. Also, 
when we vote, know why we are doing this. We want to maintain our 
arsenal of democracy. We want to maintain our cutting edge and our 
qualitative edge. We also want our young men and women to be fit for 
duty, whether it is for military service or other service to the 
Nation.
  I know the gentleman from Arizona is waiting. I have now completed my 
remarks, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland. She is 
tough and principled, a great representative of her State, and she has 
been a friend for many years. I thank

[[Page S3679]]

her for her words. I also respectfully, obviously, disagree.
  This vote is obviously one that places domestic considerations on the 
same plane as national security. As we look around the world, I think 
it is pretty obvious that since 2011--the world was a very different 
place when sequestration was enacted. We need to have a military that 
is prepared to fight and is not unready, planes that can fly, ships 
that can sail, and men and women who are trained to fight. All of those 
have been impacted by sequestration.
  With the Director of National Intelligence telling the Armed Services 
Committee and the world that there will be attacks in Europe and the 
United States of America, we cannot afford an $18 billion cut from last 
year and an over $100 billion cut since 9/11.
  Every one of our military leaders has told us that we are putting the 
men and women who are serving in uniform at greater risk. That is not 
fair to them, I say to the Senator from Maryland. It is not fair. So I 
don't put our domestic needs on the same plane as our national 
security. I believe our national security is our first obligation, and 
that is what my amendment is all about.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 minutes on the 
Democratic side and 3 minutes on my side prior to the second vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

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

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Reed 
     amendment No. 4549 to the McCain amendment No. 4229 to S. 
     2943, the National Defense Authorization Act.
         Harry Reid, Jack Reed, Richard J. Durbin, Michael F. 
           Bennet, Charles E. Schumer, Patty Murray, Richard 
           Blumenthal, Jeff Merkley, Jeanne Shaheen, Al Franken, 
           Gary C. Peters, Bill Nelson, Barbara Boxer, Robert 
           Menendez, Sheldon Whitehouse, Amy Klobuchar, Barbara A. 
           Mikulski.

  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. 4549, offered by the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, 
to amendment No. 4229 to S. 2943, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 43, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 95 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Udall
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--55

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Carper
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Sanders
     Warner
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 43, the nays are 
55.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Under the previous order, there will now be 6 minutes of debate, 
equally divided, prior to the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I will vote against Senator 
McCain's amendment No. 4229, the $18 billion of additional spending for 
the Department of Defense.
  I support the troops and their mission, especially Maryland's nine 
military bases. While there are many items I would like to see more 
money for, I believe we can meet the needs of our national defense 
within the budget caps. For fiscal year 2017, the Department of Defense 
appropriations bill reported unanimously by the Appropriations 
Committee last week did that.
  The Defense appropriations bill accomplishes many objectives without 
a budget gimmick. It uses base funding to provide $600 million to meet 
Israel's missile defense, an increase of $455 million above the 
request. The McCain amendment offers only $465 million. Appropriations 
will add $600 million to Israeli defense.
  Let's look at new, modern ships. The McCain amendment authorizes $90 
million less for the littoral ships than what we do. We put in $475 
million. The McCain amendment adds nothing to an account for the 
National Guard and Reserve. The Defense appropriations bill adds $900 
million for the Guard and Reserve equipment account so they can 
recapitalize themselves, so they can be part of our fighting military 
for our Commander in Chief.
  Also, we can look at something like the Arctic. There is a threat to 
the Arctic. Senator Murkowski from Alaska has spoken eloquently about 
it. We have money in here for polar icebreakers. The Russians have 6, 
and we have 1 in Antarctica. This helps the shipbuilding industry and 
so on.
  We can do this in Defense appropriations. I urge the rejection of the 
McCain amendment. We can meet our national defense without a budget 
gimmick.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, facts are stubborn things. They add $7 
billion. We want $18 billion to restore the cuts from last year.
  So I say to the Senator from Maryland: Facts are stubborn things. The 
fact is this amendment increases spending by $18 billion, which brings 
us up to last year's level.
  Look at how the world has changed in the last year. Look at the 
commitments that this Nation has assumed as a result of a failed Obama 
foreign policy.
  It increases the military pay raise to 2.1 percent. The current 
administration budgets 1.6. It fully funds our troops in Afghanistan. 
It stops the cuts to end strength and capacity. For example, it cancels 
a planned reduction of 15,000 active Army soldiers. It prevents cutting 
the 10th carrier air wing. It includes additional funding for 36 
additional UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters, five Apaches, and five 
Chinooks. It provides an additional $319 million for Israeli defense 
programs and $2.2 billion for readiness.
  We have ships that can't sail and planes that can't fly and pilots 
that can't train. Do you know our pilots are flying less hours than 
Russian and Chinese pilots are, thanks to sequestration?
  It addresses the Navy's ongoing fighter shortfall and USMC aviation 
readiness. It supports the Navy's shipbuilding programs, necessary to 
fund the additional DDG-51, and restores the cut of 1 littoral ship. 
That is the job of the authorizers. You are doing the job of the 
authorizers, I say to the Senator from Maryland, and that is wrong. It 
is up to us to authorize, not you. It is your job to fund, not to 
authorize.
  So what is a ``no'' vote going to do, my friends?

[[Page S3680]]

  It is going to be a vote in favor of another year where the pay for 
our troops doesn't keep pace with inflation. In voting no, you are 
cutting more soldiers and marines in operational requirements. Voting 
no will be a vote in favor of continuing to shrink the number of 
aircraft that are available to the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. 
Voting no would be a vote in favor of letting arbitrary budget caps set 
the timeline for our mission in Afghanistan. Voting no is a vote in 
favor of continuing to ask our men and women in uniform to continue to 
perform more and more tasks.
  As the Chief of the U.S. Army has said, if we continue these cuts, we 
are putting the lives of the men and women in the military in danger. 
If you vote no, don't go home and say you support the military, because 
you do not.
  I yield.


                             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 bill 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 the McCain 
     amendment No. 4229 to S. 2943, an act to authorize 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2017 for military activities 
     of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and 
     for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to 
     prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, 
     and for other purposes.
         John McCain, John Cornyn, Marco Rubio, Roger F. Wicker, 
           Richard Burr, James M. Inhofe, Pat Roberts, Tom Cotton, 
           Thom Tillis, Roy Blunt, Shelley Moore Capito, Dan 
           Sullivan, Lindsey Graham, Lisa Murkowski, David Vitter, 
           Mitch McConnell.

  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. 4229, offered by the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, to 
S. 2943, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 56, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 96 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--42

     Alexander
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Cochran
     Coons
     Corker
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Heller
     Hirono
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Reed
     Reid
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Tester
     Udall
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Sanders
     Warner
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 56, the nays are 
42.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The Senator from Arizona.


                      Amendment No. 4229 Withdrawn

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I withdraw my amendment No. 4229.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right, and the amendment 
is withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 4607

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 4607.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4607.

  Mr. McCAIN. 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 amend the provision on share-in-savings contracts)

       On page 508, strike line 10 and all that follows through 
     ``(d) Training.--'' on line 15 and insert the following:
       Section 2332 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Training.--

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I believe we are waiting for the Senator 
from Utah.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


      Unanimous Consent Request--Authority for Committees to Meet

  Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, I have five unanimous consent requests 
for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have 
the approval of the majority and minority leaders.
  I ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that 
these requests be printed in the Record.
  Mr. McCAIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, for the benefit of my colleagues, until 
we finish this bill, I don't want anybody doing anything but finishing 
this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, while we are waiting, I believe that one 
of the Senators is coming to the floor for a unanimous consent request.
  I would like to talk for a minute with my friend from Rhode Island, 
the ranking member, about a provision that is being held up, 
unfortunately, and that has to do with our interpreters, who have 
literally placed their lives on the line in order to help Americans and 
literally save American lives. That amendment is being held up for 
extraneous reasons.
  The Senator from New Hampshire, I, and everybody on a bipartisan 
basis, and with fervent pleas from people such as GEN David Petraeus, 
GEN Stanley McChrystal, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker--later on I will 
read all of these individuals' letters that are almost wrenching 
because, in the words of, I believe, General McChrystal, it is not just 
a regular obligation, it is a moral obligation. Are we going to not 
allow these people to come to the United States, these people who 
literally laid their lives on the line for us and saved American lives, 
in the view of our military leadership who testified to that? General 
Petraeus wrote a very compelling letter. All the most respected 
military and diplomatic leaders have asked for this, and it is being 
held up for extraneous reasons.
  I alert my colleagues that the Senator from Rhode Island and I are 
going to ask unanimous consent to move to that amendment because there 
are 99 votes in favor of it.
  We cannot do this. We cannot do this to people who are allies. What 
message does it send to anybody who wants to assist the U.S. military 
and government--not just the military; the government--in carrying out 
their responsibilities and missions? If we send the message that we are 
going to abandon those people, what will happen in the next conflict? 
What will happen in Afghanistan today?
  I hope an objection will not take place. I would like to alert my 
colleagues that in the next 15 or 20 minutes we will be moving that 
amendment, asking unanimous consent. Anyone who opposes it, I suggest 
they come to the floor and be prepared to object. This is really a 
matter of what America is all about. As important as an amendment that 
is not connected to that is, I don't know of a higher obligation we 
have than to care for those who have, as I say for the third time, laid 
their lives on the line and saved American lives in our pursuit of 
trying to achieve our goals.
  So I would alert my colleagues that in 15 minutes we will be 
proposing a

[[Page S3681]]

unanimous consent agreement to pass that amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I join the chairman. He has very 
eloquently and passionately described the situation we are in. We have 
thousands of Afghans who have come forward and helped our forces--not 
just our military forces but our diplomats and our AID workers. They 
have been the translators. They have been on the frontlines, and they 
have exposed themselves to risk. Many of them are in danger of 
retaliation. What they want and what I think is owed to them is the 
opportunity to relocate to the United States.
  The Senator from New Hampshire has proposed an amendment and has 
worked incredibly hard to satisfy objections from many different 
quarters, both technical and substantive, and I think has reached a 
very principled approach that would recognize our obligations to these 
individuals. It would, in a very controlled and very careful way, allow 
them to relocate to the United States.
  Again, I thank the chairman for his passionate leadership and the 
Senator from New Hampshire for her extraordinary and tireless efforts, 
for the last 24-plus hours and throughout the larger process.
  The other point I wish to make, and it does echo what the chairman 
said, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, but particularly in Afghanistan, if 
we are going to sustain our presence there, as I believe we must, we 
have to be able to recruit additional Afghans to help us. If the 
message they are getting is ``You are going to put your life on the 
line, and when you are no longer useful to them, they don't even 
remember you. You are not even a name; you are just a nobody,'' we are 
going to have a difficult time. If we can't recruit these highly 
skilled interpreters and other Afghans, our personnel--diplomatic, 
military, and others--will be in jeopardy. In addition to supporting 
our troops, some of these interpreters have been involved with FBI 
agents who were in Kabul and other places on counterterrorism 
operations. It is very dangerous work. Work that couldn't be done 
without these interpreters.
  Again, the Senator from New Hampshire has done the bulk of the work, 
and we have done good work in getting to the point where we really need 
to get this passed.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I join Chairman McCain and Ranking 
Member Reed in the very eloquent remarks they have provided in support 
of the Special Immigrant Visa Program for Afghans who have assisted our 
men and women on the ground serving in Afghanistan.
  Chairman McCain mentioned the letter from GEN Stanley McChrystal. I 
would like to read a few sentences from this letter that was sent to 
all the Members of Congress.
  General McChrystal says:

       The U.S. military presence in Afghanistan relies on allies 
     who serve as translators, security personnel, and in a 
     multitude of other functions. All of these actors are vital 
     to the U.S. mission, whether [they] work directly or 
     indirectly with U.S. forces. Afghans who served the United 
     States in non-military capacities or in support of the 
     Department of State face serious threats as a result of their 
     service.

  He goes on to say:

       If this program falls far short of the need, it will have 
     serious national security implications.

  We have received similar letters from GEN John Campbell, who was head 
of the forces in Afghanistan, and from General Nicholson, who is 
currently the general and commander of resolute support of United 
States Forces-Afghanistan. Ryan Crocker, a former Ambassador in 
Afghanistan, has been very eloquent in the need to continue to support 
this program and make sure those Afghans who have stood with our 
American soldiers can come to the United States.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record these letters and this article from Ryan Crocker.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                        McChrystal Group, LLC,

                                Alexandria, Virginia, May 1, 2016.
     Hon. Senator John McCain,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Senator Jack Reed,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Representative Mac Thornberry,
     Rayburn House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Representative Adam Smith,
     Rayburn House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Senator Charles Grassley,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Senator Patrick Leahy,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Representative Bob Goodlatte,
     Rayburn House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Representative John Conyers, Jr.,
     Rayburn House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators and Representatives: I write today to express 
     my support for the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) 
     program and to express my opinion that additional SIVs are 
     desperately needed.
       Throughout my service in the U.S. military, I have seen 
     just how important a role our in-country allies play in our 
     missions. Many of our Afghan allies have not only been 
     mission-essential--serving as the eyes and ears of our own 
     troops and often saving American lives--but have risked their 
     own and their families' lives in the line of duty. Protecting 
     these allies is as much a matter of American national 
     morality as it is American national security. I ask for your 
     help in upholding this obligation by appropriating additional 
     Afghan SIVs to bring our allies to safety in America.
       It is crucial that Congress act to provide additional visas 
     for the SIV program. The most recent figures from the State 
     Department suggest that at least 10,000 applicants remain in 
     the SIV processing backlog; as our troop presence in 
     Afghanistan continues, we can only expect more endangered 
     Afghan allies to seek our help, adding to the backlog. The 
     Department of State has indicated that an additional 4,000 
     Afghan SIVs for the year would allow it to continue to 
     process and issue visas in Fiscal Year 2017. If this program 
     falls far short of the need, it will have serious national 
     security implications.
       I am also concerned that Congress may limit eligibility for 
     SIV applicants. The U.S. military presence in Afghanistan 
     relies on allies who serve as translators, security 
     personnel, and in a multitude of other functions. All of 
     these actors are vital to the U.S. mission, whether the work 
     directly or indirectly with U.S. forces. Afghans who served 
     the United States in non-military capacities or in support of 
     the Department of State face serious threats as a result of 
     their service. They are currently eligible for the SIV 
     program and their eligibility should remain intact.
       Thank you for your support of the Special Immigrant Visa 
     program. Congress must ensure that the SIV program for our 
     Afghan allies--one of the only truly non-partisan issues of 
     the day--meets the needs of those we seek to help.
           Sincerely,
                                            Stanley A. McChrystal,
     General, U.S. Army (Retired).
                                  ____

                                                     Headquarters,


                                             Resolute Support,

                                 Kabul, Afghanistan, May 20, 2016.
     Hon. John McCain,
     Chairman, Armed Services Committee,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my support for 
     the continuation of the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program. 
     It is my firm belief that abandoning this program would 
     significantly undermine our credibility and the 15 years of 
     tremendous sacrifice by thousands of Afghans on behalf of 
     Americans and Coalition partners. These men and women who 
     have risked their lives and have sacrificed much for the 
     betterment of Afghanistan deserve our continued commitment. 
     Failure to adequately demonstrate a shared understanding of 
     their sacrifices and honor our commitment to any Afghan who 
     supports the International Security Assistance Force and 
     Resolute Support missions could have grave consequences for 
     these individuals and bolster the propaganda of our enemies.
       During my previous three tours in Afghanistan, I have seen 
     many Afghans put themselves and their families at risk to 
     assist our forces in pursuit of stability for their country. 
     The stories of these interpreters and translators are heart-
     wrenching. They followed and supported our troops in combat 
     at great personal risk, ensuring the safety and effectiveness 
     of Coalition members on the ground. Many have been injured or 
     killed in the line of duty, a testament to their commitment, 
     resolve, and dedication to support our interests. Continuing 
     our promise of the American dream is more than in our 
     national interest, it is a testament to our decency and long-
     standing tradition of honoring our allies.
       Afghanistan faces a continuing threat from both the Afghan 
     insurgency and extremist networks. We must remain committed 
     to helping those Afghans who, at great personal risk, have 
     helped us in our mission. This is the second year the Afghan 
     National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) are in the lead 
     for security. They are fighting hard and

[[Page S3682]]

     fighting well for a stable, secure Afghanistan. The vast 
     majority of the SIV applicants have served as interpreters 
     and translators for our troops. They have exposed themselves 
     and compromised the safety of their families to provide 
     critical situational awareness and guidance, both of which 
     have helped save countless Afghan, American and Coalition 
     lives.
       Thank you for your continued support of American troops in 
     Afghanistan.
           Very Respectfully,
     John W. Nicholson,
       General, U.S. Army, Commander, Resolute Support/United 
     States Forces--Afghanistan.
                                  ____

                                                     Headquarters,


                             United States Forces-Afghanistan,

                                               Kabul, Afghanistan.
     Hon. John McCain,
     Chairman, Armed Services Committee,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman, I am writing you to express my strongest 
     support for the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program.
       Since our arrival in Afghanistan, U.S. Forces have relied 
     upon our Afghan partners, especially our linguists, to 
     perform our mission. They have consistently been there with 
     us through the most harrowing ordeals, never wavering in 
     their support for our soldiers, our mission, and their own 
     country. Many have been injured or killed in the line of 
     duty.
       Unfortunately, their support of our mission has resulted in 
     our Afghan partners facing threats from insurgent groups 
     throughout the country. They frequently live in fear that 
     they or their families will be targeted for kidnappings and 
     death. Many have suffered this fate already. The SIV program 
     offers hope that their sacrifices on our behalf will not be 
     forgotten.
       After several ups and downs, the program remains an 
     extremely important way for the United States to protect 
     those who assisted us. By December 2014, the Department of 
     State had issued all 4,000 Afghan SIVs allocated under the 
     Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014. As 
     you know, the FY15 National Defense Authorization Act 
     provides 4,000 additional SIVs for Afghan applicants. The 
     State Department's Status of Afghan Special Immigrant Visa 
     Program report in April 2015 shows there are more than 8,000 
     SIV applications that have been submitted. Each week, I 
     receive several personal requests and inquiries from 
     linguists and others who have worked with, or continue to 
     work with, U.S. Forces, seeking assistance with the Afghan 
     SIV program. I inform them how we are working closely with 
     Congress to obtain adequate SIV allocations each year. This 
     shows just how important this program remains to our Afghan 
     partners, as well our own forces.
       Since I assumed command of the Resolute Support Mission/
     U.S. Forces-Afghanistan, much has changed and the Afghan 
     National Defense Security Forces (ANDSF) are in the lead to 
     secure the country. We have a willing and strategic partner 
     whose interests are aligned with our own. The ANDSF is taking 
     the fight to the enemy this fighting season and are 
     performing well. Our prospects for long-term success and a 
     strategic partner have never been better. We would not be in 
     this position without the support and leadership of the U.S. 
     Congress, the American people, the men and women who have 
     served here with distinction, and our Afghan partners.
       I urge Congress to ensure that continuation of the SIV 
     program remains a prominent part of any future legislation on 
     our efforts in Afghanistan. This program is crucial to our 
     ability to protect those who have helped us so much.
       Thank you for your support for America's Soldiers, Sailors, 
     Airmen, and Marines.
           Sincerely,
                                                 John F. Campbell,
     General, U.S. Army, Commanding.
                                  ____


                [From the Washington Post, May 12, 2016]

   Don't Let the U.S. Abandon Thousands of Afghans Who Worked for Us

                           (By Ryan Crocker)

       The House will soon consider the National Defense 
     Authorization Act, an annual piece of legislation that sets 
     policy for the military. If the bill becomes law in its 
     current form, the United States will break faith with the 
     Afghans who served with U.S. troops and diplomats.
       This is a very personal issue for me. I was the U.S. 
     ambassador to Iraq from 2007 to 2009 and the U.S. ambassador 
     to Afghanistan from 2011 to 2012. I observed firsthand the 
     courage of the citizens who risked their lives trying to help 
     their own countries by helping the United States. During my 
     time in Afghanistan, I had the pleasure of working with the 
     859 Afghan staffers at our embassy who risked their lives 
     every day to work for the betterment of their country and 
     ours. It takes a special kind of heroism for them to serve 
     alongside us.
       Two men continue to stand out in my memory for their 
     service to our nation. Taj, for instance, worked for the U.S. 
     government for more than 20 years; he returned from Pakistan 
     after the fall of the Taliban as the first local staffer in 
     the reopened embassy. He was there when I first raised our 
     flag in early 2002. His outreach to imams to discuss 
     religious tolerance and women's rights under the Koran has 
     achieved measurable results in fighting extremism. Another, 
     Reza, helped connect embassy leadership with politicians and 
     thought leaders, supporters and critics, to hear their 
     concerns and ideas. To protect these brave men and their 
     families, I can use only their first names here.
       As a result of their service, many allies like Taj and Reza 
     have faced--and continue to face--security threats so serious 
     that they are unable to remain in their home countries. From 
     2006 to 2009, I worked closely with the Congress to establish 
     special immigrant visa (SIV) programs for Afghans and Iraqis 
     that enable our brave partners to come to safety in the 
     United States because of the sacrifices they made on our 
     behalf. Although Iraqi and Afghani ``special immigrants'' do 
     not technically come as refugees under the law, that is 
     exactly what they are, in essence: people persecuted because 
     of their political actions and in urgent need of protection. 
     Reza, for example, faced Taliban death threats for his work 
     assisting our embassy and now lives in the United States.
       In an era of partisan rancor, this has been an area where 
     Republicans and Democrats have acted together. Congress has 
     continued to support policies aimed at protecting our wartime 
     allies by renewing the Afghanistan SIV program annually--
     demonstrating a shared understanding that taking care of 
     those who took care of us is not just an act of basic 
     decency; it is also in our national interest. American 
     credibility matters. Abandoning these allies would tarnish 
     our reputation and endanger those we are today asking to 
     serve alongside U.S. forces and diplomats.
       By welcoming these Afghans, we would offer a powerful 
     counter-narrative to the propaganda of the Islamic State and 
     other extremist groups, which claim that the United States is 
     hostile to Muslims. Turning our backs on people who worked 
     with us would appear to give credence to the extremists' 
     lies.
       The need for help is particularly great this year as the 
     U.S. military has reduced its presence in Afghanistan. There 
     are 10,000 Afghans in the SIV application backlog. But the 
     State Department has fewer than 4,000 visas remaining, which 
     would leave more than 6,000 Afghans stranded in a country 
     where their work for the United States means they are no 
     longer safe. State requested 4,000 additional visas so that 
     it can continue to process applications. Yet even these 
     additional visas are not enough to protect all the Afghans 
     and Iraqis who have worked and continue to support the United 
     States abroad.
       But the legislation, as it passed the House Armed Services 
     Committee last week, goes in the opposite direction. Despite 
     this backlog, the bill has no provision to increase the 
     number of visas. It restricts the criteria for eligibility to 
     military interpreters and translators who worked off-base and 
     individuals who worked on-base in ``trusted and sensitive'' 
     military support roles, excluding Afghans who worked in non-
     military roles such as on-base security, maintenance and 
     support for diplomats and other government entities. Neither 
     Taj nor Reza would have qualified under such revised 
     criteria. When deciding whom to kill, the Taliban do not make 
     such distinctions in service--nor should we when determining 
     whom to save.
       There is still time to save and strengthen this essential 
     program. This week, the Senate Armed Services Committee is 
     considering the bill. In past years, the bipartisan efforts 
     of leaders like Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Jeanne 
     Shaheen (D-N.H.) have kept these essential visa programs 
     intact, and I hope they can do the same this year. Congress 
     should both expand this essential program and work to fix the 
     delays in processing that are weakening it.
       This is truly a matter of life and death. I know hundreds 
     of people who have been threatened because of their 
     affiliation with the United States. Some have been killed. 
     Today, many are in hiding, praying that the United States 
     keeps its word. We can and must do better.

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, as Senator Reed said, the amendment we 
have offered has been very carefully crafted. It has been a compromise 
among those who have had concerns about the program and those of us who 
believe it is critical we continue to support it. This is something all 
of those who have been watching this program have now agreed to, and I 
hope the objection we are hearing from some, that I think is unrelated 
to this issue, can be addressed.
  I close with a story that says to me how important this program is. 
Senator McCain and I had the opportunity 2 years ago to sit down with a 
former Army captain, a man named Matt Zeller, and his interpreter, an 
Afghan named Janis Shinwari, who had just been allowed into the United 
States. When I asked Matt Zeller how he met Janis and about the help he 
had provided him, his response was that they had met basically when he 
and his unit were under attack from the Taliban and he was knocked out 
in that attack. When he woke up, it wasn't he and fellow unit members 
of the military who were dead, it was the Taliban, and they were dead 
because Janis Shinwari was there and had protected Matt and the fellow 
members of his unit.

[[Page S3683]]

  I think that says so much about how important these interpreters and 
those who have provided support to our men and women on the ground in 
Afghanistan have been. What will we say the next time we want somebody 
to help, when we need help in a country where our men and women are 
fighting, if they can look back and say: You didn't keep your word, 
United States, so why should we help you now?
  This is our opportunity to continue to keep our word, to continue to 
make sure those people who helped us in Afghanistan, who protected our 
men and women on the ground there, are able to come to the United 
States when they are threatened, when their families are threatened, 
and be safe.
  I certainly hope we can work out the objection we are hearing from 
some Members and that we can support this very carefully crafted 
compromise to make sure we protect those who have helped protect us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                      Industrial Hemp Farming Act

  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, we are working on the very important 
Defense bill, but I just wanted to take a few minutes to discuss 
another topic.
  For some time, with the support of the Senate majority leader, Mr. 
McConnell, Senator Merkley and Senator Paul and I have all been trying 
to change Federal law so farmers across the country can secure the 
green light to grow hemp in America.
  About a year ago, I came to the floor of the Senate with a basket of 
hemp products to highlight that this is a particularly important time 
in the debate--a time in history when we have kind of reflected on what 
this issue has been about. I have talked about how hemp products are 
made in this country, sold in this country, and consumed in our 
country, but they are not 100-percent American products. They can't be 
fully red, white, and blue products because the law says the hemp used 
to make them cannot be grown on a large-scale basis here at home.
  Another year has gone by since the majority leader, Senator Merkley, 
Senator Paul, and I teamed up, and unfortunately industrial hemp 
continues to be on the controlled substances list. Because of that 
unjustified status, hard-working farmers in Oregon and across our 
country have been deprived of the opportunity and benefits of a crop 
that has enormous economic potential--all because there has been this 
misinterpretation that in some way this is affiliated with marijuana.
  Industrial hemp and marijuana come from the same plant species. 
Someone could say they have a similar look, but they are, in fact, very 
different in key ways. First and foremost, industrial hemp does not 
have the psychoactive properties of marijuana. You would have about as 
much luck getting high by smoking cotton from a T-shirt as you would by 
smoking hemp. In my view, the hemp ban looks like a case of illegality 
for the sake of illegality.
  Four Members of the United States Senate, including the Senate 
majority leader, want to bring an end to this anti-hemp stigma that 
has, in effect, been codified in the law. We have talked about a whole 
host of hemp products--foods, soap, lotion supplements, hemp milk, and 
you can even use a hemp product to seal the lumber in a deck.
  If you just look at the variety of products--the kinds of products I 
have shown here before--you can certainly see the ingenuity of American 
producers. You see a growing demand of American consumers for hemp 
products. My view is our hard-working farmers ought to have the 
opportunity to meet that demand.
  Unfortunately, 100 percent of the hemp used in the kinds of products 
I brought to the floor have to be imported from other countries. So 
this ban on hemp is not anti-drug policy, it is anti-farmer policy. I 
have held this belief. I remember going to a Costco at home, when my 
wife Nancy was pregnant with our third child, and I saw there were hemp 
products available there at the local Costco, and I announced what was 
going to be a guiding principle of mine on this; that is, if you can 
buy it at a local supermarket, the American farmer ought to be able to 
grow it. Quaint idea, but I think if you walk through a Costco or any 
other store, you say to yourself: Must be pretty exasperating for 
American farmers to not have an opportunity to be part of generating 
that set of jobs associated with the ag sector because the jobs are 
coming from people overseas.
  There has been a bit of progress. The 2014 farm bill puts the first 
cracks in the Federal ban. It okayed growth research projects led by 
universities and agriculture departments in States such as Oregon and 
Kentucky that take a smarter approach to hemp. These projects have 
proven successful. Farmers are ready to grow hemp, but the first cracks 
in the Federal ban do not go far enough, and these projects are still 
just tied up, tied up, and tied up in various spools of redtape.
  In my view, what is needed is a legislative solution. So what we now 
have, in addition to the four of us--the Senators from Kentucky, the 
Senators from Oregon--is a bipartisan group of 12 Senators on the 
Industrial Hemp Farming Act. Once and for all, what we would say is, as 
a matter of law, let's remove hemp from the schedule I controlled 
substances list and give a green light to farmers from one end of the 
country to another who believe they would like to have a chance putting 
people to work growing hemp.
  I urge my colleagues to reflect on the history of this time, to learn 
more about the safe and versatile crop and the great potential it holds 
to giving a boost to American agriculture and our domestic economy.
  This is a bipartisan bill. The Senate majority leader, Mitch 
McConnell; my colleague from Oregon, Senator Merkley; Senator 
McConnell's colleague from Kentucky, Rand Paul--the four of us, both 
Senators from Oregon, both Senators from Kentucky--say this is common 
sense. Twelve Members of the Senate are on board. It is time to turn 
this into law and give our hard-working farmers--and I note the 
Presiding Officer knows a bit about farming--I want to give our farmers 
another opportunity to generate profit and revenue for their important 
enterprises in America, and I hope my colleagues will support the 
legislation.
  With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. 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. REED. Madam President, we have been moving very steadily through 
this authorization bill. I once again commend the leadership of 
Chairman McCain. It really began months ago when the Chairman decided 
that he was going to do an indepth analysis of the Department of 
Defense, calling upon experts from an extraordinary range of academic, 
military, and diplomatic leaders. As a result, we became much more 
knowledgeable than we were previously about things within the 
Department that we should very carefully review and perhaps change. In 
fact, because of his leadership, this is the most fundamental revision 
of the Goldwater-Nichols procedures that were adopted three decades 
ago. We have spent a lot of time discussing important issues, but I 
don't think we have given quite enough credit to the work that the 
Chairman and our colleagues have done with respect to some of these 
important reforms.
  One area that we worked on together is developing statutory authority 
for cross-functional teams within the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense. One of the challenges that Goldwater-Nichols faced, and faced 
successfully, was to try to integrate operational units. They came up 
with the concept of jointness, which now we assume has always been 
there, but that was not the case 30 or 40 years ago. Because of the 
inspiration of the concept and because of the emphasis in the 
assignment process of moving forward and having an assignment not in 
your branch of service but in a job that required the integration of 
other services, that approach made a significant, fundamental change on 
the effective operations of military forces today, and we take it for 
granted.
  Similarly, we want to take that type of approach not just in the 
services and

[[Page S3684]]

the operational command but within the headquarters of the Secretary of 
Defense. We have organized cross-functional teams that the Secretary--
he or she--can adopt. These cross-functional teams exemplify the real 
mission of the Secretary. It is not to organize personnel or logistics. 
It is to achieve an outcome which requires every component to work 
together. This is just one example of the innovation that is being 
promoted in this legislation. Again, I think it is not only building on 
Goldwater-Nichols, but it is really going much further more 
effectively.
  One of the inspirations for this approach is what has been done in 
private industry. Private industry has faced some of the same 
challenges as every large institution--and the Department is a large 
institution. They have lots of functional areas, but they didn't have a 
common operational technique, a common team, et cetera. Looking at the 
private sector, this model has become prevalent because it has reduced 
costs, increased efficiency, and delivered products on time--in fact, 
even faster than they thought they could do. We hope this approach will 
similarly provide the kinds of organizational structure and incentives 
for the Department of Defense that will make the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense much more efficient. That is just one aspect but 
there are other aspects that are critical too.
  Some of the other aspects involve trying to focus research and 
engineering in one particular focal point in the Department of Defense. 
This is in reaction to the phenomenon that we have all observed, and 
that is that our technological superiority--which we took for granted 
for decades and decades and decades--is now being slowly eroded because 
of research that is going on across the globe. Part of our proposal is 
to have a very centralized figure with significant rank to focus on 
this research and engineering effort.
  Other duties in terms of management of the program, operation of the 
Department of Defense, and testing issues could be coordinated with 
other elements. That is another important aspect of these proposals.
  Again, we have spent a great deal of time discussing important 
issues, but I think we should not fail to note these important changes.
  In addition to structure changes at the Department of Defense level, 
we are also creating a much more organizationally streamlined structure 
in order to more appropriately deliver services.
  In addition, we worked closely with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to get 
their input about how the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs can be more 
effective as the principal adviser to the President of the United 
States. That is an important change to be made. We have also been very 
careful to get feedback from professionals within the Chairman's office 
so that we are doing things that make sense, that work, and that 
function appropriately.
  Another important aspect to note in talking about very fundamental 
Goldwater-Nichols reform is the role of the Vice Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff. That person has the responsibility to head the Joint 
Requirements Oversight Council--JROC--which I am well familiar with. 
Essentially, the JROC lays out for all the services what types of 
equipment they need, what requirements they are fulfilling--whether it 
be an undersea craft or a new aviation platform. After listening to the 
numerous experts that came before us, our observation was that the Vice 
Chairman might have been in a sense first among equals, but there were 
more consensus decisions without a focal point of leadership. What we 
have done in this legislation is make it clear that the Vice Chairman 
is indeed the leader of that group, so he or she will someday have the 
ability to make decisions after getting advice from the other members 
of the JROC.
  But it will not be what is perceived today as a sort of quid pro quo 
between services: The Navy might want a particular ship, and in return 
for that particular ship, they will be amenable to a proposal by the 
Air Force for a particular aviation platform. What we have now is that 
the Vice Chair will be able--not only as the official formal head of 
this but also as the chief adviser to the Chairman--to say: No, we have 
looked at this not from the perspective of the service but from the 
perspective of the Joint Chiefs and our role as giving advice to the 
President so that we can go ahead and give a decision that is not based 
upon anything else.


                Amendment No. 4603 to Amendment No. 4607

  Mr. REED. Madam President, at this juncture I call up Reid amendment 
No. 4603.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for Mr. Reid, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4603 to amendment No. 4607.

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

       At the end, add the following:
       This Act shall be in effect 1 day after enactment.

  Mr. REED. Madam President, to continue briefly, we are again spending 
a great deal of time on an important issue, and we have more important 
issues that will emerge. But I think it is long overdue to cite what we 
have done in just a small part under the leadership of the chairman to 
make fundamental changes to the operation of the Department of Defense. 
I am confident that years from now, when they talk about Goldwater-
Nichols, they will talk about McCain, what the McCain amendments did 
and what the McCain bill did. I think that is a fitting tribute to the 
chairman. I also think it is ultimately what we are all about here. It 
is going to make sure that the men and women in the field who wear the 
uniform of the United States have the very best leadership, from the 
Secretary's level, to the Chairman's level, all the way down to their 
platoon leader and commander.
  I want to make sure we noted that.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, may I say to my very modest friend from 
Rhode Island that anything that has the McCain name on it has a 
hyphened name and the Reed name on it because what we have accomplished 
in the Senate Armed Services Committee would be absolutely impossible 
without the partnership we have. I cannot express adequately my 
appreciation for the cooperation and the friendship we have developed 
over many years. As I have said probably 200 times, despite his poor 
education, he has overcome that and has been a very great contributor 
to----
  Mr. REED. Will the chairman yield? If I had the opportunity to go to 
a football school and not an academic institution, I would be better 
off today.
  Forgive me, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, hopefully we are going to pass the 
resolution that will allow interpreters to come to the United States 
under a special program.
  I have received letters, and correspondence from literally every 
military leader and diplomatic leader who has served in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record copies of those 
letters and correspondence.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     Headquarters,


                                             Resolute Support,

                                 Kabul, Afghanistan, May 20, 2016.
     Hon. John McCain,
     Chairman, Armed Services Committee,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my support for 
     the continuation of the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program. 
     It is my firm belief that abandoning this program would 
     significantly undermine our credibility and the 15 years of 
     tremendous sacrifice by thousands of Afghans on behalf of 
     Americans and Coalition partners. These men and women who 
     have risked their lives and have sacrificed much for the 
     betterment of Afghanistan deserve our continued commitment. 
     Failure to adequately demonstrate a shared understanding of 
     their sacrifices and honor our commitment to any Afghan who 
     supports the International Security Assistance Force and 
     Resolute Support missions could have grave consequences for 
     these individuals and bolster the propaganda of our enemies.
       During my previous three tours in Afghanistan, I have seen 
     many Afghans put themselves and their families at risk to 
     assist our forces in pursuit of stability for their country. 
     The stories of these interpreters and translators are heart-
     wrenching. They followed and supported our troops in combat 
     at

[[Page S3685]]

     great personal risk, ensuring the safety and effectiveness of 
     Coalition members on the ground. Many have been injured or 
     killed in the line of duty, a testament to their commitment, 
     resolve, and dedication to support our interests. Continuing 
     our promise of the American dream is more than in our 
     national interest, it is a testament to our decency and long-
     standing tradition of honoring our allies.
       Afghanistan faces a continuing threat from both the Afghan 
     insurgency and extremist networks. We must remain committed 
     to helping those Afghans who, at great personal risk, have 
     helped us in our mission. This is the second year the Afghan 
     National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) are in the lead 
     for security. They are fighting hard and fighting well for a 
     stable, secure Afghanistan. The vast majority of the SIV 
     applicants have served as interpreters and translators for 
     our troops. They have exposed themselves and compromised the 
     safety of their families to provide critical situational 
     awareness and guidance, both of which have helped save 
     countless Afghan, American and Coalition lives.
       Thank you for your continued support of American troops in 
     Afghanistan.
           Very Respectfully,
     John W. Nicholson,
       General, U.S. Army, Commander, Resolute Support/United 
     States Forces--Afghanistan.
                                  ____

                                                     Headquarters,


                            United States Forces--Afghanistan,

                                               Kabul, Afghanistan.
     Hon. John McCain,
     Chairman, Armed Services Committee,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman, I am writing you to express my strongest 
     support for the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program.
       Since our arrival in Afghanistan, U.S. Forces have relied 
     upon our Afghan partners, especially our linguists, to 
     perform our mission. They have consistently been there with 
     us through the most harrowing ordeals, never wavering in 
     their support for our soldiers, our mission, and their own 
     country. Many have been injured or killed in the line of 
     duty.
       Unfortunately, their support of our mission has resulted in 
     our Afghan partners facing threats from insurgent groups 
     throughout the country. They frequently live in fear that 
     they or their families will be targeted for kidnappings and 
     death. Many have suffered this fate already. The SIV program 
     offers hope that their sacrifices on our behalf will not be 
     forgotten.
       After several ups and downs, the program remains an 
     extremely important way for the United States to protect 
     those who assisted us. By December 2014, the Department of 
     State had issued all 4,000 Afghan SIVs allocated under the 
     Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014. As 
     you know, the FY15 National Defense Authorization Act 
     provides 4,000 additional SIVs for Afghan applicants. The 
     State Department's Status of Afghan Special Immigrant Visa 
     Program report in April 2015 shows there are more than 8,000 
     SIV applications that have been submitted. Each week, I 
     receive several personal requests and inquiries from 
     linguists and others who have worked with, or continue to 
     work with, U.S. Forces, seeking assistance with the Afghan 
     SIV program. I inform them how we are working closely with 
     Congress to obtain adequate SIV allocations each year. This 
     shows just how important this program remains to our Afghan 
     partners, as well our own forces.
       Since I assumed command of the Resolute Support Mission/
     U.S. Forces-Afghanistan, much has changed and the Afghan 
     National Defense Security Forces (ANDSF) are in the lead to 
     secure the country. We have a willing and strategic partner 
     whose interests are aligned with our own. The ANDSF is taking 
     the fight to the enemy this fighting season and are 
     performing well. Our prospects for long-term success and a 
     strategic partner have never been better. We would not be in 
     this position without the support and leadership of the U.S. 
     Congress, the American people, the men and women who have 
     served here with distinction, and our Afghan partners.
       I urge Congress to ensure that continuation of the SIV 
     program remains a prominent part of any future legislation on 
     our efforts in Afghanistan. This program is crucial to our 
     ability to protect those who have helped us so much.
       Thank you for your support for America's Soldiers, Sailors, 
     Airmen, and Marines.
           Sincerely,
                                                 John F. Campbell,
     General, U.S. Army, Commanding.
                                  ____

     From: David Petraeus
     Date: May 12, 2016.

       Dear Chairman, I write to express my support for the Afghan 
     Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program and to state that 
     additional SIVs are desperately needed.
       Throughout my time in uniform, I saw how important our in-
     country allies are in the performance of our missions. Many 
     of our Afghan allies have not only been mission-essential--
     serving as the eyes and ears of our own troops and often 
     saving American lives--they have risked their own and their 
     families' lives in the line of duty. Protecting these allies 
     is as much a matter of American national morality as it is 
     American national security. I ask for your help in meeting 
     our obligation by appropriating additional Afghan SIVs to 
     bring our allies to safety in America.
       It is crucial that Congress act to provide additional visas 
     for the SIV program. The most recent figures from the State 
     Department suggest that at least 10,000 applicants remain in 
     the SIV processing backlog; as our troop presence in 
     Afghanistan continues, we can expect more endangered Afghan 
     allies to seek our help, adding to the backlog. The 
     Department of State has indicated that an additional 4,000 
     Afghan SIVs for the year would allow it to continue to 
     process and issue visas in Fiscal Year 2017. If this program 
     falls far short of the need, it will have serious national 
     security implications.
       I am also concerned that Congress may limit eligibility for 
     SIV applicants. The U.S. military presence in Afghanistan 
     relies on local partners who serve as translators, security 
     personnel, and in a multitude of other functions. All of 
     these individuals are vital to the U.S. mission, whether they 
     work directly or indirectly with U.S. forces. Afghans who 
     served the United States in non-military capacities or in 
     support of the Department of State face serious threats as a 
     result of their service. They are currently eligible for the 
     SIV program and their eligibility should remain intact.
       Thank you for your support of the Special Immigrant Visa 
     program. Congress must ensure that the SIV program for our 
     Afghan allies--one of the only truly non-partisan issues of 
     the day--meets the needs of those we seek to help.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Dave Petraeus.

  Mr. McCAIN. For the sake of illustration, I would like to quote from 
a couple of the letters I have. One is from General Nicholson, who 
today is our commander of resolute support, United States Forces-
Afghanistan. I won't read the whole letter, but I would like to quote 
it because I think it is very compelling.
  General Nicholson says:

       During my previous three tours in Afghanistan, I have seen 
     many Afghans put themselves and their families at risk to 
     assist our forces in pursuit of stability for their country. 
     The stories of these interpreters and translators are heart-
     wrenching. They followed and supported our troops in combat 
     at great personal risk, ensuring the safety and effectiveness 
     of Coalition members on the ground. Many have been injured or 
     killed in the line of duty, a testament to their commitment, 
     resolve, and dedication to support our interests. Continuing 
     our promise of the American dream is more than in our 
     national interest, it is a testament to our decency and long-
     standing tradition of honoring our allies.

  I would like to repeat General Nicholson's last sentence: 
``Continuing our promise of the American dream is more than in our 
national interest, it is a testament to our decency and long-standing 
tradition of honoring our allies.''
  I could not put it any better than General Nicholson did.
  Finally, I would like to quote from a letter by General Campbell, who 
was his predecessor. General Campbell said:

       I am writing you to express my strongest support for the 
     Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program.
       Since our arrival in Afghanistan, U.S. Forces have relied 
     upon our Afghan partners, especially our linguists, to 
     perform our mission. They have consistently been there with 
     us through the most harrowing ordeals, never wavering in 
     their support of our soldiers, our mission, and their own 
     country. Many have been injured or killed in the line of 
     duty.
       Unfortunately, their support of our mission has resulted in 
     our Afghan partners facing threats from insurgent groups 
     throughout the country. They frequently live in fear that 
     they or their families will be targeted for kidnappings and 
     death. Many have suffered this fate already. The SIV program 
     offers hope that their sacrifices on our behalf will not be 
     forgotten.

  Again, those are two compelling statements.
  I will not go further because I see the distinguished Senator from 
Georgia waiting, but I would like to quote from correspondence from an 
individual who I think is the finest military leader among the many 
outstanding military leaders whom I have had the opportunity of 
knowing. This is from GEN David Petraeus, Retired. It is a letter he 
wrote. He said:

       Throughout my time in uniform, I saw how important our in-
     country allies are in the performance of our missions. Many 
     of our Afghan allies have not only been mission-essential--
     serving as the eyes and ears of our own troops and often 
     saving American lives--they have risked their own and their 
     families' lives in the line of duty. Protecting these allies 
     is as much a matter of American national morality as it is 
     American national security. I ask for your help in meeting 
     our obligation by appropriating additional Afghan SIVs to 
     bring our allies to safety in America.

  It is signed ``Sincerely, David Petraeus.''

[[Page S3686]]

  Both of the individuals I just quoted served multiple tours--not one, 
not two, sometimes as many as five--in Iraq and Afghanistan over the 
last 14 years. These leaders know what the service and sacrifice of 
these Afghans and Iraqis have provided to our military at the very risk 
and loss of their lives since they are the No. 1 target of the Taliban 
in Afghanistan.
  I hope my colleagues, by voice vote, will agree to increase the visa 
program so that we can allow these people to come to the United States 
of America.
  I will end with this. I know that some people come to our country 
whom we have some doubts about--their citizenship, their commitment to 
democracy, their adequacy, the kind of people they are.
  Well, these people have already proven their allegiance to the United 
States of America because they have put their lives on the line. Some 
of them had their family members murdered. I have no doubt as to what 
kind of citizens of this country they will be.
  I believe that an overwhelming majority of my colleagues agree that, 
as General Nicholson said in his letter, it is a moral obligation. I 
think we will all feel better after we get this done.
  I note the presence of probably the most well-informed Member of the 
U.S. Senate on budgetary issues, the Senator from Georgia.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, first, I want to thank the distinguished 
Senator from Arizona, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and 
the ranking member, Senator Reed, for their tireless work in doing 
God's work here, and that is making sure we provide for the needs of 
our men and women in uniform around the world.
  There are only 6 reasons why 13 Colonies got together in the first 
place. One of those six was to provide for the national defense. That 
is what we are talking about this week.
  As we debate the National Defense Authorization Act this week, I 
personally would like to add a little different perspective to this 
debate.
  In my opinion, today the world is more dangerous than at any time in 
my lifetime. We have major threats from various perspectives. No. 1, we 
see the rise of traditional rivals--Russia, China--and ever-more 
aggressiveness from both. We see the rise of ISIS and attendant 
networks around the country supporting terrorism and the Islamic State. 
We see the proliferation of nuclear capability among rogue nations, 
such as North Korea and Iran. We see the hybrid warfare, including 
cyber warfare, that is being perpetrated today. What we are not talking 
about is the growing arms race in space. All this adds to a very 
dangerous world and makes it very mobile and puts people right here in 
the United States in danger, as we have seen already.
  As we face these increasing threats, though, at the very time we need 
our military to be strongest, we are disinvesting in our military.
  You can see from this chart that over the last 30 years or so, we 
have had three Democratic Presidents, and all have disinvested in the 
military for different reasons. First we had President Carter, then we 
had President Clinton, and now we have President Obama. We have 
disinvested in the military to the point that today we are spending 
about 3 percent of our GDP on our military. That is about $600 billion 
in round numbers. The 30-year average is 4 percent. That difference, 
that 1 percentage point of difference, is $200 billion.
  What I am concerned about is that as we sit here facing these 
additional threats today, we have the smallest Army since World War II, 
the smallest Navy since World War I, and the oldest and smallest Air 
Force ever. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the current 
plan is even worse than that. It says that in the next 10 years we will 
continue to disinvest in our military down to 2.6 percent of our GDP. 
That is another estimated $100 billion of reduction. This is a new low 
that I believe we cannot allow to happen.
  As we look at our overall defense spending authorization levels today 
in this NDAA bill, we are falling short of where we need to be based on 
the threats we face. Don't just take my word for it. The last defense 
budget that Secretary Bob Gates actually proposed was in 2011. That was 
the last one proposed before sequestration took place, and that was the 
last defense budget that was based on the actual assessment of the 
threats against our country, not arbitrary budget limitations. His 
estimate at that time for this year, fiscal year 2016, was $646 
billion. As for 2017, our top-line estimate right now--what we are 
trying to get approved--is $602 billion. That is a far cry.
  By the way, Secretary Gates' estimate was before ISIS, before the 
Benghazi attacks on our Embassy, before Russia seized Crimea, before 
Russia went into the Ukraine, and before China started building islands 
in the South China Sea. I can go on. How did we get here?
  Today, financially, we have an absolute financial catastrophe. In the 
last 7 years, we have borrowed about 30 percent of what we have spent 
as a Federal Government. It is projected that over the next 10 years we 
will again borrow about 30 percent of what we spend as a Federal 
Government.
  My argument has been that we can no longer be just debt hawks; we 
have to also be defense hawks. By the way, those two can no longer be 
mutually exclusive.
  In order to solve the global security crisis, I believe we have to 
solve our own financial debt crisis. We all know we have $19 trillion 
of debt today. What is worse, though, is that CBO estimates that is 
going to grow to $30 trillion over the next decade unless we do 
something about it.
  This chart shows the real problem. Right now, the problem is not 
discretionary spending, which is actually down from around 2010--about 
$1.4 trillion--down to about $1.1 trillion today. So discretionary 
spending--now, we may have gotten there the wrong way. We used the 
sequestration to do that. But I would argue that discretionary spending 
is not where the major problem is today. The major probably is in the 
mandatory spending--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, pension and 
benefits for Federal employees, and the interest on our debt.
  We have been living in an artificial world where interest rates have 
been basically zero. We are paying fewer dollars on the Federal debt 
today--fewer dollars than we were in 2000 when our debt was one-third 
of what it is today.
  To deal with the global security crisis, we need to be honest about 
what our military needs. That gets difficult sometimes. Today we have 
national security priorities that aren't getting properly funded, and 
yet we know we are spending money inefficiently.
  First of all, we have missions that we are not able to maintain. Take 
a look at the marine expeditionary units around the world. These are 
the MEUs around the world. I visited a couple of these, by the way. 
Because of defense cuts, there aren't enough amphibious ships for the 
marines to have what is known as theater reserve force, also known as 
MEUs. As a result, for missions like crisis response and Embassy 
protection in Africa, for example, we now have a Special Purpose MAGTF 
covering this task based on the ground in Moron, Spain.
  I personally visited with those people. The best--I mean the very 
best of America is in uniform around the world taking care of our 
business and protecting our interests and our freedom here at home. 
Even this force in Moron, Spain, is seeing a cut in their fleet size of 
airplanes. They are self-contained. They can get themselves from where 
they are to the point of crisis very quickly, but we are cutting their 
ability to do that because of limitations from a financial standpoint.

  Another example is the recapitalization program for the Joint 
Surveillance Target Attack Radar System, or what we call JSTARS, the 
No. 4 acquisition priority for the Air Force and a critical provider of 
ISR ground targeting and battlefield command and control to all 
branches of our military in almost every region of the world.
  As the old fleet is reaching the end of its service life, we will 
have to have a new fleet come online quickly. The problem is we are 
seeing a projected gap of 7 years where that capability will no longer 
be available in full force for the people who need it the most--people 
on the ground and in harm's way.
  We are not able to fund the military at the force size we need 
either. As a

[[Page S3687]]

result, we are putting greater pressure on personnel, burning up our 
troops, putting pressure on families, and elongating our deployments. 
They spend more time on rotations internationally and not enough time 
with their families at home, and it is causing problems. It is causing 
turnover, problems with families, and so forth.
  The forces we have are not getting the training they need. For 
example, two-thirds of Army units are only training at the squad and 
platoon levels, not in full combat formations. We have Air Force pilots 
actually leaving the service today because they cut back so 
dramatically on training flights. These examples highlight why we need 
to scrutinize every dollar we spend on defense so we can ensure these 
dollars go to our critical requirements of protecting our men and women 
around the world.
  To that end, we need to improve fiscal accountability at the DOD and 
highlight the needs we are not currently fulfilling. For example, our 
Department of Defense has never been audited. Even today, we cannot 
dictate to the DOD that they provide an audit.
  Can you imagine Walmart doing that? First of all, the answer is this: 
We are too big, too complicated, and it is just too difficult to do. 
Can you imagine Walmart calling the SEC and saying: Sorry, we are not 
going to comply with your requirements. The DOD is not that much bigger 
than Walmart.
  I think we should withhold funds to the accountable agency until a 
plan is produced that would also allow the Pentagon to keep track of 
its military equipment. It has been 13 years since that law was passed, 
and yet they are still not in compliance. This is all just about 
funding our military, but we also have to be responsible. The men and 
women in uniform and on the frontlines deserve that.
  Finally, to address a critical need we discussed earlier, JSTARS, 
Senator Isakson and I have been working to get the replacement fleet 
ready to go sooner rather than later to eliminate this gap. This fleet 
must get online faster than the current plan or we face a potential 7-
year gap.
  I am committed to ensuring that we have what we need to support our 
service men and women around the world. These efforts will make the 
Pentagon accountable and focus funds on critical priorities. This 
debate is all about setting the right priorities, not just here at home 
with the military but also with other domestic programs and mandatory 
expenditures. This debate is all about setting the right priorities to 
make sure we can do what the Constitution calls on us to do, and that 
is to provide for the national defense.
  The national debt crisis and our global security crisis are 
interlocked inextricably. We are not going to solve the dilemma of 
providing for national defense until we solve this national debt 
crisis. Our servicemen, servicewomen, and combatant commanders don't 
have and will not have the training, equipment, and preparation they 
absolutely need to fulfill their missions as they face growing threats. 
It is time that Washington faces up to this crisis.
  This is not just about the NDAA. This is about the defense of our 
country and the future of our very way of life. We simply have to come 
to grips with this NDAA, pass it, and make sure we find a way to 
address this debt crisis so every year going forward we don't have this 
drama of finding a way to fund our military to protect our country. We 
simply have to come to grips and set the right priorities required to 
defend our country.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, for more than 23 years, I had the great 
honor of serving in the Army Reserve and National Guard. It was during 
this time that I was able to gain firsthand experience of working 
alongside the unbelievable men and women in uniform, whose character, 
honor, and love of our country has led them to sacrifice so selflessly 
for it. During my time in the military, I had the honor of serving a 
tour in Kuwait and Iraq.
  As a company commander during Operation Iraqi Freedom, what was so 
important to me, other than bringing everyone home, was ensuring my 
troops received what they needed when they needed it. Unfortunately, 
given the nature of war and the learning curve our military had in its 
first large-scale military deployment since Operations Desert Shield 
and Desert Storm, that did not always happen. However, as the war went 
on, our military adapted and our troops were able to receive the 
equipment they needed to do the job.
  Even though I am now retired from the military, I still have the 
privilege of serving our men and women in uniform, just in a different 
capacity, as a Senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee. It 
has been an honor to work with Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Reed, 
and the other distinguished members of the committee on another vital 
annual Defense bill.
  Over the past year, my colleagues and I have worked to produce a bill 
that enhances the capabilities of our military to face current and 
future threats. This bill will impart much needed efficiencies in the 
Department of Defense that will result in saving American taxpayer 
dollars and allow the Department to provide greater support to our 
warfighters through eliminating unnecessary overhead, streamlining 
Department functions, reducing unnecessary general officer billets, and 
modernizing the military health care system.
  Furthermore, we have found ways to enhance the capabilities of our 
warfighters, ensuring our troops have the training opportunities in 
order to be prepared to execute their assigned missions. This means 
more rotations to national training centers and more effective home 
station training for our troops who are being sent into harm's way 
around the world.
  Our military leaders have stressed that readiness is their top 
priority. Adequately funding their request for readiness keeps faith 
with our servicemembers and ensures that our men and women in uniform 
have the best chance to come home to their loved ones. However, while 
we have adequately funded the Department's readiness needs, 
sequestration has led us to prioritize readiness over DOD 
modernization. I believe this is a risky proposition with respect to 
ensuring our servicemembers will have the advanced equipment, vehicles, 
ships, and aircraft to confront technologically advanced adversaries, 
such as Russia and China, in a potential future conflict.
  Unfortunately, I believe many have taken our decades-long 
technological dominance for granted. If we continue to fail to 
adequately fund modernization, our servicemembers may pay the price for 
that decision with their lives, something none of us want.
  While I fully agree with the need to identify and reduce government 
spending--and especially to eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse in the 
DOD--we must also ensure funds are allocated in the proper areas so our 
troops have the resources they need so they are not outclassed by our 
adversaries, who are currently modernizing their capabilities with aims 
to defeat our country in a potential conflict.
  Due to sequestration and the Bipartisan Budget Act, this bill is 
short of what our troops need to defend our country next year and in 
future years. I believe it is important to keep that in mind while we 
consider this bill.
  I was sorely disappointed that the Senate did not come together in a 
bipartisan fashion and stop shortchanging our troops and their families 
through the arbitrary caps set through sequestration. That was a missed 
opportunity. The threats the Nation and our troops face are too great 
for partisan bickering, shortsightedness, and the abdication of one of 
our core responsibilities, which is to provide for our military.
  I wish to talk also about a few of the provisions included in the 
NDAA that I crafted. During the process, I was able to author nearly 
two dozen provisions ranging from improving the professionalism of 
military judge advocates and military intelligence professionals to 
making retaliation against sexual assault victims its own crime and 
enhancing DOD program management.
  As I stated repeatedly, one area of focus for me is working to 
prevent sexual assault in the military. While we have seen progress, 
there are still steps that must be taken to improve the system and the 
overall culture. One of my provisions would help enhance the military 
prosecutors and JAGs to better ensure that victims of sexual assault 
and other crimes will know their

[[Page S3688]]

case is in good, well-trained, and experienced hands.
  Also included in this bill is a provision I authored with Senator 
McCaskill of Missouri, which combats retaliation within our military. 
We cannot allow any retaliation against survivors who come forward 
seeking justice, and this provision will work to curb the culture of 
retaliation in our ranks.
  Other provisions I pushed to have included in the committee report 
seek to bring greater military intelligence support to our warfighters 
by ending growth in headquarters elements and pushing that support down 
to those military intelligence units providing direct support to our 
warfighters. Not only do these report language provisions seek to 
enhance support to our men and women defending our Nation on the 
frontlines, but they would also create safeguards which will help 
ensure your taxpayer dollars are being spent properly within the DOD.
  This bill also includes my Program Management Improvement 
Accountability Act, which is a bipartisan piece of legislation that 
solves problems with program and project management that have plagued 
the Federal Government for decades, especially in the Department of 
Defense. We have read about these failures in the media, IG reports, 
and the GAO High Risk List. Many projects are grossly overbudget, 
delayed, or do not meet previously stated goals.
  Ultimately, by strengthening its program management policies, the DOD 
and other Federal agencies will better account for and utilize taxpayer 
dollars. It will also improve its ability to complete projects on time 
and on budget, which leads to getting our troops the advanced equipment 
and weapons they need as soon as possible.
  In closing, I want to thank again my colleagues for their work on 
this bill, but most of all, I thank our men and women in uniform, and I 
want them to know that we stand with them in their defense of this 
great country and all that it stands for.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. President, as we continue to debate this year's 
National Defense Authorization Act on the floor this week, I want to 
take a few minutes as the ranking member of the Armed Services 
Strategic Forces Subcommittee to discuss provisions of the bill that 
relate to our Nation's nuclear deterrent and nonproliferation programs, 
missile defense, and space programs.
  I want to start by thanking all the members of the Strategic Forces 
Subcommittee for putting in another year of hard work. I would 
especially like to thank our Subcommittee Chairman, my colleague from 
Alabama, Senator Sessions, for the strong partnership we have built 
over the past 2 years in leading this committee together. I want my 
colleagues to note that Senator Sessions and his staff worked closely 
together with me and my staff in developing elements of the bill 
pertaining to the Strategic Forces Subcommittee.
  Together with our colleagues on the subcommittee, we have built 
bipartisan consensus on some of the most important issues in this 
bill--no small feat when we are talking about things like nuclear 
weapons and defending against missile threats from Iran and North 
Korea.
  I also thank the tremendous professionals on our staff, both 
Republican and Democratic, whose expertise and dedication to serving 
the national interest are essential to this bill's success.
  In developing the base language for the NDAA, the Strategic Forces 
Subcommittee held five hearings and a number of briefings on topics 
ranging from nuclear policy and deterrence, to missile defense, to 
protecting our satellites in space during a time of increasing threats 
from potential adversaries who seek to exploit the fragile nature of 
these assets.
  In the area of nuclear forces, our subcommittee has prioritized the 
need to update our Nation's nuclear command and control infrastructure 
to ensure our ability to communicate with our nuclear forces in times 
of national crisis.
  We have also examined the role of our Nation's deterrence policy 
toward Russia and made available $28 million to shore up our NATO 
nuclear mission, over and above the funding for the European 
Reassurance Initiative. These funds will help provide much needed 
upgrades to the readiness of our dual-capable aircraft and other 
activities to exercise our nuclear mission in support of NATO.
  Within the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security 
Administration, we continue to fully authorize the W-76 submarine 
missile warhead life extension program, where upward of two-thirds of 
our deterrent will exist upon full implementation of the New START 
Treaty.
  We also continue to life-extend the B61 gravity bomb in support of 
our NATO allies, and we have fully authorized the life extension of the 
W80 cruise missile warhead, which will support the air leg of our 
triad.
  The subcommittee has continued full support for the Nunn-Lugar 
Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, which marks its 25th anniversary 
this year. I would like to thank Senator Lugar and Senator Nunn for 
their extraordinary service to this Nation. This program, named for my 
fellow Hoosier predecessor, Senator Richard Lugar, combats nuclear 
proliferation by helping nations detect nuclear materials crossing 
their borders and by securing nuclear materials in their countries to 
keep them out of the hands of terrorists.
  In addition to working with nuclear material, the program also 
addresses biological threats, helping other nations secure dangerous 
pathogens. In the case of the Ebola epidemic, the program was able to 
help the 101st Airborne Division develop rapid field diagnostics to 
quickly screen infected patients from those who simply had a fever 
unrelated to the disease. Many have credited this program's quick 
response, combined with the capabilities of the 101st Airborne, with 
reversing the tide of the Ebola epidemic before it spread to large 
cities.
  In the area of cutting-edge hypersonic systems, the bill provides 
full funding for programs like conventional prompt strike that aim to 
even the global playing field on hypersonic systems development.
  According to public reports, Russia and China are prioritizing the 
development of hypersonic weapons and making troubling progress 
relative to our own. If we are to maintain our Nation's technological 
edge over our potential adversaries, we need to invest in this critical 
area of research and development.
  While the House authorizers and appropriators have also fully funded 
conventional prompt strike, I am surprised and troubled to see that the 
Senate Appropriations Committee has proposed cutting this program by 
almost half. I hope to work with my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to address this issue and restore full funding to conventional 
prompt strike in the coming months.
  In the area of electronic warfare, our subcommittee has required the 
Commander of U.S. Strategic Command to coordinate and develop joint 
execution plans to operate and fight in a domain that includes 
electronic jamming and other means that disrupt our fragile electronic 
systems. Russia has a long-established doctrine in this area, but ours 
has been lacking. This provision will help reverse that trend.
  In the area of missile defense, the subcommittee has fully authorized 
the President's budget request for the Missile Defense Agency and 
authorized additional funding for key development areas, including the 
redesigned kill vehicle, the multi-object kill vehicle, and an improved 
ground-based interceptor booster.
  The NDAA also requires a review of DOD's strategy and capabilities 
for countering cruise and ballistic missiles before they are launched, 
and it directs the MDA to conduct a flight test of the GMD system at 
least once each fiscal year. The bill provides funding above and beyond 
the President's budget request for our collaborative missile defense 
programs with Israel, including Iron Dome, David's Sling, and Arrow 
systems. However, given the threat posed by Iran's growing ballistic 
missile arsenal, I believe these programs require additional funding, 
particularly for procurement related to David's Sling and the Arrow 
systems. These programs are more important than ever and have my full 
support.

  In the area of space, the NDAA addresses a number of important issues

[[Page S3689]]

related to our critical satellite-based capabilities. This week we 
commemorated the 72nd anniversary of D-day. Anyone who knows the 
history of the Normandy invasion knows how critical a role weather 
forecasting can play in the success or failure of a mission. This 
year's bill pays close attention to DOD's ability to provide weather 
data to our troops around the world, particularly in CENTCOM's area of 
responsibility. Our current fleet of weather satellites is aging, and 
our subcommittee has taken DOD to task for its failure to adequately 
plan for the upcoming gap in cloud cover data over the Indian Ocean.
  Whether we are talking about GPS, weather surveillance, or 
communications, our Nation's space-based capabilities are fundamentally 
dependent on our ability to get to space. There is no question that we 
must maintain the ability to send national security satellites into 
space with launch systems that are affordable and, above all, supremely 
reliable.
  We learned a hard lesson on reliability in the late 1990s when we 
lost three national security satellites to launch failures. Those 
failures cost the taxpayer more than $3 billion and lost our Nation a 
critical communications capability that we didn't replace for more than 
a decade. Subsequently, years of monopoly in DOD space launch taught us 
a hard lesson about the necessity of competition for keeping costs 
down.
  While we all agree on the need to maintain what is known as assured 
access to space, how we best meet that goal has become a topic of 
debate, particularly since our deteriorating relationship with Russia 
put a spotlight on the fact that DOD uses Russian rocket engines in 
many of its space launches. We need to end our Nation's reliance on 
Russian engines with the development of an American-made alternative. 
We have studied the facts on this issue in painstaking detail on the 
Strategic Forces Subcommittee for not just months, but years. The fact 
is, if we want to end our reliance on Russian engines without 
jeopardizing the reliability and affordability that are essential to a 
successful launch program, it is going to take another few years.
  I am not satisfied with that. I want to see it happen faster. In the 
meantime, though, we have to take seriously the warnings of our 
military and intelligence community that eliminating access to the RD-
180 engine prematurely, before a replacement is ready to fly, would 
seriously undermine our national security interests. As it currently 
stands, the NDAA would ban the use of RD-180 engines years before a 
replacement is ready and instead rely on the more expensive Delta 
rocket to fill the gap. I respect the careful thought behind this 
proposal and the effort to ensure that we don't create a capability 
gap. Ultimately this approach, though, would cost the taxpayer an 
additional $1.5 billion and divert funds from developing an American-
made replacement engine and launch system to paying for these more 
expensive Delta launches. At a time when we continue to face budgetary 
challenges in defense and domestic spending, this is a cost and a risk 
we don't need.
  With that in mind, I support the bipartisan amendment No. 4509 
offered by my colleagues Senator Nelson and Senator Gardner. This 
amendment grants DOD access to only those Russian engines it needs 
between now and 2022, when the Department has said a replacement will 
be ready. I believe this is the most responsible approach to a very 
difficult issue.
  Let me close by again thanking Senator Sessions for the productive 
and bipartisan relationship we have had on the subcommittee. I also 
thank our full committee chairman, Senator McCain, and our ranking 
member, Senator Reed, for their leadership and their dedication to 
strengthening our national security and caring for our military.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important 
legislation and to see it signed into law.
  Mr. President, I yield back any remaining time that has been 
allotted.
  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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Remembering Cassandra Quin Butts

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, almost a year ago exactly I met with a 
remarkable woman. She was wise, gracious, and funny, but I think what 
struck me the most about her was her idealism. Cassandra Quin Butts 
believed in the revolutionary promise on which our Nation was founded; 
that all men and women are created equal. She spent her entire working 
life trying to expand that premise.
  On the day we met, her nomination to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the 
Bahamas had been blocked for more than a year for reasons entirely 
unrelated to her qualifications. That did not make her cynical. It did 
not diminish her desire to serve. She just wanted to know if there was 
anything she could do to help. It was typical. Cassandra Butts asked 
the question, How can I help?
  Sadly, Ms. Butts will never receive the vote she deserved on her 
nomination to be Ambassador. She died over a week ago at the far-too-
young age of 50. She felt ill for a few days, had seen a doctor, and 
died peacefully in her sleep before learning of her diagnosis, acute 
leukemia.
  Cassandra Butts was a longtime friend of President Obama and First 
Lady Michelle Obama. Ms. Butts and the future President met during 
their first days of Harvard Law School in the financial aid office. 
Neither one of them came from families that could simply write checks 
for tuition. In a statement mourning her passing, the President and 
First Lady remembered Ms. Butts and said as ``a citizen, always 
pushing, always doing her part to advance the causes of opportunity, 
civil rights, development, and democracy.''
  ``Cassandra,'' the Obama's wrote, ``was someone who put her hands 
squarely on that arc of the moral universe, and never stopped doing 
whatever she could to bend it toward justice.''
  They continued. ``To know Cassandra Butts was to know someone who 
made you want to be better.'' Ms. Butts began her distinguished career 
in public service about a year after graduating law school. She worked 
as legal counsel to U.S. Senator Harris Wofford. After the Senate, she 
went to the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, following in the 
footsteps of one of her heroes, former U.S. Justice Thurgood Marshall.
  She returned to Capitol Hill in 1996 as a senior adviser to House 
Majority Leader Dick Gephardt and the House Democratic policy 
committee. From 2004 to 2008, she served as Senior Vice President for 
Domestic Policy at the Center for American Progress--with a few breaks 
in service to help her old friend. When Barack Obama was elected to the 
Senate in 2004, Cassandra Butts was there, helping him to get his 
office up and running.
  Later, she helped her old friend the President launch his historic 
Presidential campaign. When he won, Cassandra Butts was there again to 
offer advice on transition. She stayed on to serve the President as 
Deputy White House Counsel. Among the lasting marks she leaves on our 
democracy, Cassandra Butts helped shepherd through this Senate the 
nomination of the first Latina ever to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, 
Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
  Ms. Butts was a remarkably humble person, especially for one who 
worked so close to power. She left the White House in November 2009 to 
serve as Senior Advisor at the Millennium Challenge Corporation. During 
her time there, she kept an exhausting schedule, traveling to some of 
the poorest places on Earth, searching for innovative ways to use 
America's leadership and ingenuity to help lift desperately poor 
people, especially women and children, out of crushing poverty.
  It saddens me that Ms. Butts never had the opportunity to serve as 
Ambassador because she could have had so many ideas that she would have 
brought to represent America's values and help the people of the 
Bahamas.
  She had hoped that being an African-American woman, it would help to 
underscore America's commitment to equality. While he waited for a vote 
on her nomination, Cassandra Butts represented our Nation well on the 
world

[[Page S3690]]

stage in a different capacity. She served with distinction as Senior 
Advisor to the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.
  Accounts of her life will always lead off with the fact that she was 
a close friend of the President and First Lady, but that was only part 
of the story. Cassandra Butts was a friend to countless people around 
the world, from the famous to the voiceless. She was a seeker of truth 
and justice. She was also warm and funny, smart and passionate, deeply 
decent. She loved jazz, the UNC Tar Heels, fast cars, especially her 
BMW.
  She left this world too soon and she will be missed. Loretta and I 
wish to extend our condolences to her many friends and family, 
especially her mother Mae Karim, her father Charles Norman Butts, her 
sister and brother-in-law, Deidra and Frank Abbott, her two nephews 
whom she adored, Austin and Ethan Abbott.
  It is a sad reality that as I stand here today and pick up this 
publication on the desk of every Senator, the Executive Calendar for 
the Senate of the United States, and turn to look at it closely, I find 
in this calendar, on page 5, the name of Cassandra Butts, waiting for 
the Senate to approve her position as the Ambassador to the Bahamas.
  She waited and waited and waited. Eventually she passed away, waiting 
on the Senate Calendar to serve this country. When the Senators who had 
a hold on her for all this period of time were asked: Why? Why did you 
hold up this woman, one of them was very candid and said: We knew she 
was close to the President, and if we stopped her, we knew the 
President would feel the pain. I hope today we all feel the pain that 
this lady can no longer have the distinction of ending her fabulous 
public career as our Ambassador representing the United States to the 
Bahamas.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor to talk about 
an issue I have worked on for a number of years and something I feel 
very strongly about; that is, our detention and interrogation policy. 
Since this administration has gotten into office, based on a campaign 
promise, the President has sought to close Guantanamo Bay.
  This administration has continued to release individuals held at 
Guantanamo--dangerous terrorists, with backgrounds, whether it is 
involvement with Al Qaeda or involvement with the Taliban or other 
groups. Just recently, they have released another 11 individuals from 
Guantanamo Bay. One of the issues that has troubled me most about this 
is that I think it is very important the American people know what is 
going on, but so much of this is happening in the cloak of darkness. So 
much of it is an unwillingness of this administration to level with the 
American people about the terrorist affiliations and activities of 
current and former Guantanamo Bay detainees.
  We have seen the most recent example of that which is troubling. On 
March 23 of 2016, Paul Lewis, the Special Envoy for Guantanamo 
Detention Closure, testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee 
that there have been Americans who have died because of Guantanamo Bay 
detainees. He was asked about this in this House hearing. My assumption 
is one of the reasons he was asked about it is because 30 percent of 
those who were held at Guantanamo--terrorists who have been released 
from Guantanamo--are suspected or confirmed of reengaging in terrorism. 
Apparently, Mr. Lewis was asked, and he said there have been Americans 
who have died because of Guantanamo detainees who have been released.

  So a fair question--a very important question--is to understand what 
these former detainees have done in terms of attacking Americans or our 
NATO allies who have worked with us to fight terrorists in places 
around the world. That was a question I posed to this administration. 
Based on what Mr. Lewis, who is the Special Envoy for Guantanamo 
Detention Closure said, I asked the administration for information 
about those who have been killed by Guantanamo detainees. On May 23 the 
administration responded to me, but their answers to my questions were 
classified in such a way that even my staff with a top secret security 
clearance could not review the response. I was able to review the 
response.
  What I want to be able to do is to give information to the American 
people so they can understand the response, because this administration 
continues to push to close Guantanamo. They continue to release 
terrorists from Guantanamo to countries around the world, and they 
continue to refuse to tell the American people--hiding behind 
classification--who the people are who are being released in terms of 
their backgrounds and in terms terrorist affiliations. They have been 
releasing a name and the country they are transferred to--but no 
information to the American people about the terrorist background of 
these individuals, no information to the American people about how 
these individuals have been released, what they have been engaged in, 
and whether they have been engaged in prior attacks on Americans or our 
allies. I believe the American people have a right to know.
  On Tuesday I also wrote a followup letter to the President urging him 
to provide without delay an unclassified response to understand how 
many Americans and our NATO partners have been killed by former 
Guantanamo detainees and which former detainees committed these 
terrorist attacks, so we can understand what we are facing.
  Unfortunately, we don't know. But in the Washington Post today there 
was an article that reported that 12 former Guantanamo detainees were 
involved in attacks on Americans after their release. The estimate in 
the Washington Post report says that these detainees have killed about 
a half dozen Americans.
  Why should the American people have to rely on the ability of the 
Washington Post to talk to people off the record to try to find out 
exactly what the activities are of these terrorists whom the 
administration continues to release without full information to the 
American people? I appreciate the reporting of the Washington Post, but 
I believe the American people deserve an answer directly from this 
administration. Since Mr. Lewis testified that Guantanamo detainees 
have been involved in killing Americans, the administration has 
released 11 more detainees from Guantanamo, with more than two dozen 
likely to be released in the coming months. Again, 30 percent are 
suspected or confirmed of reengaging in terrorism--people such as 
Ibrahim al-Qosi, affiliated with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, who 
was released by this administration in 2012 to Sudan. He has joined 
back up with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which is headquartered 
in Yemen.
  Previously, what has been revealed about him publicly is that he 
trained at a notorious Al Qaeda camp as a member of Osama bin Laden's 
elite security detail.
  What is more troubling is that he is now back with Al Qaeda in the 
Arabian Peninsula. He is a leader and a spokesman for this group, and 
he is urging attacks on American and our allies. That is what is at 
stake when we think about the security of the American people. Yet the 
policy that this administration and this President keep pushing is to 
close Guantanamo. They are trying to take de facto steps to close 
Guantanamo by releasing people without information to the American 
people.
  In this Defense authorization bill that is pending on the floor, in 
the Armed Services Committee I have included a provision that would 
prohibit international release or transfer of any detainee from 
Guantanamo until the Department of Defense submits to Congress an 
unclassified report on the individual's previous terrorist activities 
and affiliations, as well as their support or participation in attacks 
against the United States or our allies.
  The administration keeps claiming that it is in the best interests of 
the United States--in our national security interests--to close 
Guantanamo.
  I fully disagree with that argument. But if that is what they really 
believe, why have they not told the American people, when they release 
the terrorists who are held at Guantanamo, whom these people have been 
involved with and whether they have been involved with attacks on 
Americans or our allies. Instead, they give the name and

[[Page S3691]]

the country they are going to. That is all they are telling the 
American people. If it is in our national security interests, they will 
fully tell the American people why they believe in transferring or 
releasing these terrorists to third-party countries, and they will tell 
the American people the truth about who is being released and what they 
have been involved in. I think the American people, if they know that 
information, will side with my view of this, which is that to close 
Guantanamo--especially by releasing dangerous individuals who are 
there, with 30 percent of them suspected or confirmed of getting back 
into battle--is against our national security interests and makes us 
less safe.
  I ask, no matter where you stand in this body on the closure of 
Guantanamo, don't we owe it to the American people to tell them? When 
they are releasing individuals from Guantanamo, doesn't the 
administration owe to the American people what terrorist group this 
person is affiliated with? Has this person ever been involved with the 
attack of Americans or our allies? Don't the American people deserve 
this basic information?
  The American people need to know who is being released, why they are 
dangerous, and what is happening in terms of our national security 
interests, because I believe they are being undermined greatly by 
continuing to release terrorists who get back in the fight. The last 
thing our men and women in uniform or any of our allies should see is a 
terrorist whom we had previously captured and was at Guantanamo.
  I hope the administration will live up to its transparency policy, 
because when it comes to releasing dangerous detainees from 
Guantanamo--some of whom have gotten back in the fight, and 30 percent 
are suspected or confirmed of getting back in the fight of terrorism 
against us--the American people deserve information about what is 
happening and what danger these individuals pose to us and our allies.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I think it is very obvious that in the 
authorization bill we placed limitations on the use of Russian rocket 
engines. It is already known that in the appropriations bill there is 
basically an unlimited purchase of Russian rocket engines, much to the 
testimony of the military-industrial-congressional complex.
  I will be showing how Russians who have been sanctioned by the United 
States of America, under Vladimir Putin, will directly profit from the 
continued purchase of these Russian rocket engines. And in the 
negotiations that I have been trying to move forward so I could satisfy 
the appropriators, there is no doubt who has the veto power. We know 
who they are talking to--the people I am negotiating with--Boeing, 
Lockheed, and the outfit called ULA, which is the two of them.
  This is a classic example of the influence of special interests over 
the Nation's priorities. But more importantly, they are so greedy that 
they were willing to put millions of dollars into the pockets of these 
individuals, two of whom have been sanctioned by the United States of 
America and one of whom has been sanctioned by the EU--cronies of 
Vladimir Putin. It is really remarkable, this nexus of special 
interests that end up profiting for these individuals millions of 
dollars, which I will talk about in a minute.
  Really, my friends, I say again that this is why we see the American 
people being cynical about Washington--this tight relationship between 
this conglomerate of two of the biggest defense industries in America--
Boeing and Lockheed--and we end up with an expenditure of tens of 
millions of taxpayer dollars. It is really remarkable.
  In the authorization bill we put a strict limit on it, and in the 
Committee on Appropriations, which we already know about, it is 
basically an open door. So that is why I was trying and will continue 
to try to have a simple amendment which says that we will not provide 
money to any company or corporation that would then profit these people 
who have been sanctioned by the United States of America in two cases, 
and in one case by the European Union. Why have they been sanctioned? 
Because of their invasion of the Ukraine.
  So when we talk about things that are unsavory, this is probably one 
of the most unsavory issues I have been involved in during my many 
years here. It was 2 years ago when Vladimir Putin began his campaign 
in Eastern Europe, dismembering a sovereign nation. Today, we are 
facing an increasingly belligerent Russian Government, and we know that 
Putin continues to occupy Ukraine, he threatens our NATO allies, and he 
bombs U.S.-backed forces in Syria that are fighting against Bashar 
Assad's murderous regime. His tactical fighter jets buzz, with 
impunity, U.S. ships in the Baltic, putting the lives of U.S. personnel 
at risk, and all the while American taxpayers continue to spend 
hundreds of millions of dollars to subsidize Russia's military 
industrial complex.
  You don't have to take my word for it. You don't have to take my word 
for it. Here is a letter I received a few days ago. And let me tell you 
who has signed it before I read it: The Honorable Leon Panetta, former 
Secretary of Defense; GEN Michael Hayden, former Director of the 
Central Intelligence Agency, former Director of the National Security 
Agency; Michael J. Morell, former Deputy Director and Acting Director 
of the Central Intelligence Agency; Michael Rogers, former chairman of 
the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; ADM James 
Stavridis, former Supreme Allied Commander at NATO. These individuals 
have some credibility--more on this issue, I think, than almost anybody 
else.
  Let me tell you what they write. And this letter is to Senator Reed 
and me:

       We write to endorse the bipartisan effort you both have led 
     to include language in the National Defense Authorization Act 
     to phase out U.S. reliance on Russian technology for the 
     space launch systems that deliver our vital and most 
     sensitive satellites.

  They go on to talk about how important reliable access to space is. I 
am continuing to quote now from their letter:

       Fortunately, we now have an American industrial base with 
     multiple providers that can produce All-American-made rocket 
     engines.

  And these are people such as the head of the Central Intelligence 
Agency saying, ``There is no need to rely on Putin's Russia for this 
sensitive, critical technology.''
  The letter goes on to talk about Russia's aggressive intervention in 
Ukraine and Crimea, and meddling in Syria. Quoting again from the 
letter:

       The threat from Russia is rising, as the committee knows 
     well. Last summer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
     General Joseph Dunford said that Russia poses an 
     ``existential'' threat to the United States, calling 
     Russia's actions ``nothing short of alarming.''

  The list goes on and on about other things. But here is a very 
important point from these experts:

       For years, Russia has helped fund its growing military with 
     capital derived from the sale of rocket engines to the United 
     States. Russian officials have referred to U.S. purchases of 
     these engines as ``free money'' for modernizing its missile 
     sector, and have frequently leveraged the Department of 
     Defense's dependence on these engines as a bargaining chip in 
     unrelated foreign policy disputes.

  They go on to talk about the Defense authorization bill for the last 
2 years passing new legislation to address this national security 
challenge. And they say:

       Under a proposed congressional transition plan, the Russian 
     engine would be phased out no earlier than 2020.
       We believe this proposed policy is wise and would prevent 
     unnecessary expenditures on Russian-made rocket engines in 
     support of Russia's industrial base. This policy guarantees 
     assured access to space by increasing reliance on existing, 
     American-made systems, providing an eminently reasonable 
     solution to ending Russia's involvement in the Department of 
     Defense's space launch program.

  I want to tell my colleagues that this comes from both sides--
Republican and Democrat administrations--and from some of the most 
reliable intelligence people we have ever had serve our country: Leon 
Panetta, General Hayden, Michael Morell, Michael Rogers,

[[Page S3692]]

Admiral Stavridis. I have heard from many others in the same way.
  So here we are with a clear influence of ULA, which is Lockheed and 
Boeing--two of the largest defense industries in America with, guess 
what, their launches in Alabama and, guess what, their headquarters in 
Illinois. Guess who is leading the charge to continuing to place 
basically unending dependence on Russian rockets. Guess who. You can 
draw your own conclusion.
  So let me go on. Let's talk about these individuals for a minute. I 
would like to discuss how continuing to buy these RD-180 engines would 
have us do business with a Russian Government and directly enrich 
Putin's closest friends who are a group of corrupt cronies and 
government apparatchiks, including persons the United States and the 
European Union have sanctioned in relation to Russia's invasion of 
Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea.
  With the swift stroke of a pen just a few days ago, on May 12, 2016, 
Putin signed a decree that reorganized Russia's entire Russian space 
industry and consolidated all of its assets under a massive ``state 
corporation'' called Roscosmos. Under Putin's directive, Roscosmos 
swallows up these other outfits--the Russian launch company that 
supplies the rockets to, guess who, United Launch Alliance. This new 
state-owned space corruption, in fact, swallows up dozens of other 
Russian companies.
  To be clear, Roscosmos is not a privately owned corporation 
facilitating business with the Russian Government. It is the Russian 
Government. As a state corporation, it furthers state policy and is 
controlled by apparatchiks who have agency authority from Putin to do 
his bidding. So there should be no confusion; Roscosmos is part of the 
very same military industrial base that conducts bloody operations in 
Ukraine and Syria.
  Under Roscosmos, Putin is no longer using Russian shell companies or 
offshore corporations to sell Russian rocket engines to line the 
pockets of his most trusted friends. Roscosmos is directly controlled 
by many of them. If you look at their highest level, the individuals 
who control the company look like a who's who of U.S. sanctions--
officers and directors who have been individually sanctioned by the 
United States or the European Union or control other companies that 
have been similarly sanctioned in connection with Russia's invasion of 
Ukraine.
  Let's start with Sergey Chemezov. There he is. Sergey Chemezov is the 
man at the very top of this chart. Chemezov is the most influential 
member of the Roscosmos supervisory board and appears to finance 
operations of Roscosmos through a bank he controls as part of his 
giant, state-owned defense corporation, Rostec.
  As CEO of Rostec, Chemezov controls roughly two-thirds of Russia's 
defense sector and employs more than 900,000 people, which is 
approximately 1.2 percent of the whole Russian workforce. This has led 
some in the Russian government to refer to him as the ``shadow defense 
industry minister.''
  More importantly, Sergey Chemezov is a former KGB agent who was 
stationed with Putin in Communist East Germany during the 1980s. The 
two lived together in an apartment complex in Dresden. Chemezov is said 
to be Putin's KGB mentor. Chemezov acknowledges that his ties to Putin 
gave him a competitive business advantage, but the truth is that his 
meteoric rise was fueled by a series of Kremlin-backed takeovers of 
prominent Russian companies, and now Roscosmos has been added to the 
list. Both Chemezov and his state-owned defense corporation Rostec are 
targeted by U.S. sanctions. I repeat, they and his company are targeted 
by U.S. sanctions, as is the Rostec-owned bank Novikombank, which 
finances Roscosmos's operations.

  Next in the organizational chart we have Igor Komarov, who will serve 
as Roscosmos' chief executive officer. He has been sanctioned by the 
European Union. Recently, he was the head of Russia's largest car 
manufacturer. This car manufacturer also happened to be taken over by 
Chemezov's behemoth defense corporation Rostec, and Chemezov later 
served on the company's board as both chairman and deputy chairman. 
Komarov is Chemezov's protege.
  To put it simply, Chemezov handpicked Komarov--a man with little or 
no experience in the space industry--to run Roscosmos. Chemezov 
leveraged his position as CEO of Rostec and his access to Putin to make 
sure that Roscosmos's new head is someone he can control. This gives 
Chemezov the ability to manage Roscosmos from the shadows, much as he 
has done with Russia's defense industry. Think of Komarov's 
relationship to Chemezov as Dmitry Medvedev's relationship to Putin.
  Finally, we have Dmitry Rogozin. Yet another target of U.S. 
sanctions, Rogozin has served as Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian 
Federation and as the so-called space czar since 2011. Remember, he has 
been sanctioned by the United States of America; he is now the space 
czar in Russia. He is also the chairman of Roscosmos's board of 
directors and has overseen the transition of Roscosmos into its new 
form, a massive state-owned corporation.
  Not surprisingly, during his tenure, Rogozin has been part of a 
period of unprecedented corruption. He has publicly acknowledged ``a 
systemic crisis from which the space agency is yet to emerge.'' He also 
attributes recent financial scandals and criminal activities to a 
``moral decline of space industry managers.'' I want to emphasize this. 
These are Rogozin's words, not mine. The Russian space czar, who has 
overseen the restructuring of Roscosmos, publicly admits that 
individuals running the state-owned corporation are hopelessly and 
fatally corrupt.
  In May 2015, the Russian Audit Chamber reported that in fiscal year 
2014 alone, Roscosmos misallocated approximately $1.8 billion. In fact, 
the money wasn't misallocated; it simply disappeared. The report cited 
gross financial violations, such as improper use of funds, misuse of 
appropriated funds, and violations in financial reporting methods. The 
number was so high that Russian auditors at first thought they must be 
wrong. They finally concluded that ``[the original Roscosmos 
organization] is among the biggest and least disciplined [of government 
agencies] that blatantly ignore regulatory requirements and best 
practices in state procurement orders.'' And this is from Russia's own 
internal government watchdog, the rough equivalent of the U.S. 
Government Accountability Office, GAO.
  My friends, as conscientious Americans, we simply cannot continue to 
do business with this group of self-admitted swindlers and crooks. We 
cannot support a Russian space agency that is financed by a sanctioned 
Russian bank, owned by a sanctioned Russian defense company, and 
controlled by a sanctioned Russian CEO who also happens to be a former 
KGB agent and close personal friend of Vladimir Putin's.
  It is time we found the moral courage to end our reckless dependency 
on Russian technology before the Russian Government ends it for us. 
Rogozin has already threatened to cut off our access to space. Just 
last year, he declared:

       We are not going to deliver the RD-180 engines if the 
     United States will use them for non-civil purposes. We also 
     may discontinue servicing the engines that were already 
     delivered to the United States.

  Despite these threats, we still manage to funnel hundreds of millions 
of dollars to Chemezov, Komarov, Rogozin, and countless other Russian 
stooges just like them. We continue to supply Vladimir Putin with the 
very capital he needs to wage his deadly shadow war in Europe and the 
Middle East. We don't need to buy any more engines from Russia. The 
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Air Force, and the Director 
of National Intelligence have all testified to that point before the 
Senate Armed Services Committee. Former Secretary of Defense and 
Director of the CIA Leon Panetta, former CIA Director and NSA Director 
Michael Hayden, former Deputy CIA Director Mike Morell, and others, 
including the former European Command commander and others, all endorse 
our efforts in this bill to responsibly end our reliance on Russian 
rocket engines.
  I am here to tell you that we are subsidizing the Russian military 
industrial complex at the expense of our own national interests, and we 
must end this dangerous addiction before it is too late.
  So here we are, my friends, with a blatant, incredible story of 
people who

[[Page S3693]]

are so involved in the Russian invasion of Ukraine that they were 
sanctioned. They were sanctioned by the United States of America and 
other countries. They are now in charge of the Russian rocket program. 
They are the ones into whose pockets go the hundreds of millions of 
dollars we spend on these Russian rockets.
  We have this incredible alliance of Boeing and United that is 
unbelievable in this consortium of the two biggest defense industries 
in America that has such control over this body that we will continue 
to subsidize and pay hundreds of millions of American dollars to 
corrupt crooks--people and money that will fuel Putin's activities. And 
we all know that his indiscriminate bombing in Syria is slaughtering 
thousands of innocent people and driving thousands into refugee 
situations. It is Vladimir Putin who is bombing the people we train and 
equip.
  By the way, as we might have seen in the last couple of days, Bashar 
al-Assad has said that there is going to be no peace, that he is going 
to regain control of the entire country of Syria, making a farce and a 
joke out of the so-called ceasefire that was orchestrated by our 
Secretary of State, who went to Moscow on bended knee to beg his buddy 
Lavrov to agree to a ceasefire that really never existed.
  The point is, we do have a supply of rocket engines. Admittedly, they 
are more expensive. I will freely admit that. But we also have a number 
of other corporations--not just SpaceX but Blue Origin, and there are a 
number of others--that are developing rocket engines. If we look at 
what SpaceX just did, they were able to land a rocket for the first 
time so it is reusable. Their space launch--they were reusing it. There 
will be other breakthroughs thanks to these entrepreneurs like Elon 
Musk and Jeff Bezos and others who are taking charge, when this old 
consortium, this old military industrial complex called ULA, is running 
things and we are paying them $800 million a year to do nothing but 
stay in business.
  My friends, I would also point out one other aspect of this. The 
Appropriations Committee's job is to appropriate. It is the authorizing 
committee that does the authorizing. What was in the appropriations 
bill in numerous places was a gross violation of the area of 
responsibility of the authorizing committee.
  I don't know exactly what we can do about this creeping policymaking 
on the part of the appropriators, but I hope that at some point--the 
majority on both sides are not members of the Appropriations Committee, 
but they are members of various authorizing committees. Sooner or 
later, they are going to get tired of authorizing certain programs and 
authorizing after debate and hearings and all the things that--for 
example, I guarantee you that the Senate Armed Services Committee has 
had 10 times the number of hearings and debates and amendments and 
markups that the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee has had. I 
guarantee you that. So they take it upon themselves on an issue such as 
this to put in their own version, which is obviously controlled by 
Alabama and Illinois.
  So that is what is wrong with this system. That is what is wrong with 
this body. That is what is wrong. And the American people are beginning 
to figure it out, and they don't like it, and they shouldn't like it.
  I pointed out yesterday--and lost a vote--that in 1992 we spent $20 
million on medical research out of the Defense appropriations, out of 
American tax dollars. Today, it is $1 billion worth of medical 
research, most of which has nothing to do with the men and women who 
are serving this country.
  I note the presence of the Senator from Colorado. I am sure he may 
even know these individuals. I would like for him to meet them, because 
they are crooks. They are crooks, they are corrupt, and they are 
butchers. So I would like for him to meet them as he continues to 
advocate for the status quo, which is a totally unacceptable 
expenditure of American tax dollars which, indeed, are used to kill 
Americans. That is a heavy responsibility, I would say to my new friend 
in the Senate, the Senator from Colorado. That is a heavy 
responsibility. These guys are killing people, and we are subsidizing 
these murderers and thugs. That is not something I would be proud of.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I have great respect for my colleague 
from Arizona. The service he has given to this country and the 
sacrifices he has endured are tremendous, and nobody can underestimate 
what he has done for this Nation.
  I don't think anybody here would ever think they have done that in 
whatever legislative action they take. So while we may disagree on 
certain issues or agree with a different course of action, I believe 
everybody wants to do what is best for their Nation.
  When it comes to this particular issue of having access to space, 
having reliable access to space, maintaining competition in our 
industry so that we can provide the best value and cost savings to the 
American taxpayer while achieving the level of security we need, that 
is where I believe this debate is rightfully focused, and that is also 
where the debate from our own Department of Defense is focused.
  Nobody in this Chamber wants to continue the status quo. In fact, I 
have filed an amendment with Senators Nelson, Bennet, Hatch, Inhofe, 
and Sessions--a number of people who believe we should end the status 
quo and go in a new direction. In fact, that is what this entire debate 
is about, to make sure we no longer have to rely on the rocket as we do 
today. But we cannot leave the security of this country blind to 
capacities that we would lose if we pursued the direction of the 
Defense Authorization Act as it is written today, because if we pass 
this legislation, there are assets that will protect the people of this 
country that we may not be able to put into space. And if we do, in 
this bill is language that will cost up to $1.5 billion because that is 
what this bill will force to be done--legislation that will result in a 
$1.5 billion to $5 billion tax increase.
  I just supported an amendment to add dollars to our defense and 
security because I believe it is important that the men and women of 
this country have the tools and the resources they need to protect and 
defend themselves. I supported that--billions of new dollars. Yet the 
actions under this bill would cost the American taxpayers somewhere 
between $1.5 billion and $5 billion in more money. While we are adding 
more money, we are taking it away with passage of this act, while 
reducing reliability, reducing access to space, and reducing 
competition. I believe as organizations like the Tea Party Patriots, 
organizations like AEI, organizations across the country that believe 
we can do better, that we should keep competition, that we should keep 
reliability--those are the things we believe in.

  Let me read comments by Defense Secretary Ash Carter, the Secretary 
of Defense, who is truly interested in making sure we protect the 
people of this Nation from bad actors:

       We have to have assured access to space, so we have to have 
     a way to launch our national security payloads into space so 
     our country's security depends on that. One way to do that 
     which is reflected in our budget is to continue to use the 
     Atlas booster including a limited, but continuing number of 
     RD-180 engines.

  Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James on January 27, 2016:

       Maintaining at least two of the existing systems until at 
     least two launch providers are available will be necessary to 
     protect our Nation's assured access to space.

  This is coming from somebody who believes we need to protect this 
country and the people of this country from bad actors. She goes on to 
say:

       As we move forward, we respectfully request this committee 
     allow the Department the flexibility to develop and acquire 
     the launch capabilities our warfighters and Intelligence 
     Community need.

  Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, William LaPlante, July 16, 
2015:

       We believe authorization to use up to 18 RD-180 engines in 
     the competitive procurement and award of launch service 
     contracts through Fiscal Year 2022 is a reasonable starting 
     point to mitigate the risk associated with assured access to 
     space and enable competition.

  This is somebody who is interested in protecting the people of this 
country from bad actors--people who would do harm, people who would do 
evil acts to this country and our allies.
  Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Katrina McFarland, 
June

[[Page S3694]]

26, 2015, talks about the need for this program.
  Intelligence Director James Clapper and Defense Secretary Ash Carter 
on May 11, 2015, together said:

       We are working diligently to transition from the Russian-
     made RD-180 rocket engine onto domestically sourced 
     propulsion capabilities, but are concerned that section 1608 
     presents significant challenges to doing so while maintaining 
     assured access to space.

  They care about the security of this Nation. They care about the 
secure future of this Nation.
  In fact, just a few days ago, in an article from former General 
Shelton, four-star commander in the U.S. Air Force, he talked about the 
need to move away from these rockets to transition to an American-made 
rocket but in the meantime not allow our capacity, our capability, or 
our competition to suffer.
  Here is what it would cost. This is what it would cost. Here is the 
graph. This is what the American taxpayers would be paying--35 percent 
more, $1.5 billion to a $5 billion increase in spending if the language 
of the bill, as it is written today, goes into law. That is not some 
staffer in the cloak of darkness in the mailroom trying to come up with 
figures. That is what the experts agree will happen.
  While this body is talking about there is not enough money to fund 
defense, while this body is voting on amendments to increase spending 
on defense, the same policies enshrined in this bill would cost up to 
$5 billion more. If we truly want to make sure we have the resources 
needed to defend this country, let's not self-inflict $5 billion worth 
of harm when we all agree to transition to an American-made system. 
Let's do so in a way that relies on the ability to do what is right 
with competition, with reliability, instead of transitioning to a 
system that can't even reach 60 percent of projected NSS needs--
national security space mission needs--unless you use a 35 percent more 
expensive rocket.
  General Shelton believes we should keep this rocket--a five-star 
general in the U.S. Air Force, Russian rocket engines are essential for 
now. General Shelton begins: ``The U.S. Senate is debating the 2017 
National Defense Authorization Act.'' An amendment proposed ``would 
provide relief'' from restrictions that we are facing right now, 
``recognizing that the current draft legislation would significantly 
harm the national security space program.''
  A four-star general in service to our Nation has said that if we 
don't change the bill as it is written, it would significantly harm the 
national security space program. General Shelton is the former 
commander of Air Force Space Command. I think he knows what he is 
talking about. I think he is an expert.
  I could read more quotes from others. The NASA Administrator believes 
that without this language, we are going to increase costs in NASA, not 
just the Department of Defense, and we are going to hurt our ability to 
access space and access launches.
  You talk to the intel communities--intel communities that believe 
they would lose the capacity to launch satellites that provide missile 
launch detection that can protect our people and our country.
  Yes, let's make sure we transition, yes, let's make sure we change 
the status quo, but let's do it in a way that is smart, good policy, 
and protects the interests of the American people. That is what this 
amendment is about, and we can all agree to that.
  Mr. President, I would like to change topics quickly, if I could.


               Marion Konishi and Camp Amache Pilgrimage

  Mr. President, just a couple of weeks ago in Colorado, Channel 9 News 
in Denver reported that a bus was going to leave Denver to make a 4-
hour drive to a place called Amache. It is where some 7,000 people 
lived, worked, and called home during much of World War II. Ten weeks 
after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Roosevelt 
signed Executive Order 996, creating internment camps for people of 
Japanese descent. One of those camps was in Colorado.
  Just a couple of weeks ago marked the 40th year that Japanese 
Americans have made a formal pilgrimage to that camp. Those 7,000 
people lived in barracks, formed their own schools, planted gardens, 
and had beauty parlors and Boy Scout troops. Their sons volunteered to 
fight and die for the country that imprisoned their parents. Many of 
the visitors to the camp were elderly, in their nineties. There were 
some college students who made the visit as well, but amongst the 
people who visited Camp Amache just a couple of weeks ago was the 
valedictorian of the 1943 Amache Senior High School class. Her name is 
Marion Konishi. It was her first visit to Camp Amache since she left 
the camp more than 70 years ago. She was a valedictorian, and 73 years 
ago she gave a speech as the head of her class. Just a few weeks ago, 
she returned to Camp Amache where she reread that speech again for the 
first time.
  I thought I would read excerpts of that speech today, her speech 
titled ``America, Our Hope is Anew,'' June 25, 1943.

       One and a half years ago I knew only one America--an 
     America that gave me an equal chance in the struggle for 
     life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If I were asked 
     then--``What does America mean to you?''--I would answer 
     without any hesitation and with all sincerity--``America 
     means freedom, equality, security, and justice.''
       The other night while I was preparing for this speech, I 
     asked myself this same question--``What does America mean to 
     you?'' I hesitated--I was not sure of my answer. I wondered 
     if America still means and will mean freedom, equality, 
     security, and justice when some of its citizens were 
     segregated, discriminated against, and treated so unfairly. I 
     knew I was not the only American seeking an answer.
       Then I remembered that old saying--all the answers to the 
     future will be found in the past for all men. So unmindful of 
     the searchlights reflecting in my windows, I sat down and 
     tried to recall all the things that were taught to me in my 
     history, sociology, and American life classes. This is what I 
     remembered.
       America was born in Philadelphia on July 4, 1776, and for 
     167 years it has been held as the hope, the only hope, for 
     the common man. America has guaranteed to each and all, 
     native and everyone foreign, the right to build a home, to 
     earn a livelihood, to worship, think, speak, and act as he 
     pleased--as a free man equal to every other man.
       Every revolution within the last 167 years which had for 
     its aim more freedom was based on her constitution. No cry 
     from an oppressed people has ever gone unanswered by her. 
     America froze, shoeless in the snow at Valley Forge, and 
     battled for her life at Gettysburg. She gave the world its 
     greatest symbols of democracy: George Washington, who freed 
     her from tyranny; Thomas Jefferson, who defined her 
     democratic course; and Abraham Lincoln, who saved her and 
     renewed her faith.
       Sometimes America failed and suffered. Sometimes she made 
     mistakes, great mistakes, but she always admitted them and 
     tried to rectify all the injustice that flowed from them. . . 
     . Her history is full of errors but with each mistake she has 
     learned and has marched forward onward toward a goal of 
     security and peace and a society of free men where the 
     understanding that all men are created equal, an 
     understanding that all men whatever their race, color, or 
     religion be given an equal opportunity to save themselves and 
     each other according to their needs and abilities.
       I was once again at my desk. True, I was just as much 
     embittered as any other evacuee. But I had found in the past 
     the answer to my question. I had also found my faith in 
     America--faith in the America that is still alive in the 
     hearts, minds, and consciences of true Americans today--faith 
     in the American sportsmanship and attitude of fair play that 
     will judge citizenship and patriotism on the basis of actions 
     and achievements and not on the basis of physical 
     characteristics.
       Can we the graduating class of Amache Senior High School, 
     still believe that America means freedom, equality, security, 
     and justice? Do I believe this? Do my classmates believe 
     this? Yes, with all our hearts, because in that faith, in 
     that hope, is my future, our future, and the world's future.

  To Marion Konishi, today Marion Kobukata, her husband Kenneth, who 
served in the 442nd, thank you for sharing these words 73 years later.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, you have a choice here. You can believe 
the Senator from Colorado where there is substantial presence of ULA--
an outfit that makes a lot of money--or you can believe Leon Panetta, 
former Secretary of Defense, former Director of the Central 
Intelligence Agency; Gen. Michael Hayden, former Director of the CIA, 
former Director of the National Security Agency; Michael Morrell, 
former Deputy Director and Acting Director of the Central Intelligence 
Agency; Michael Rogers, former chairman of the House Select Committee 
on Intelligence; ADM James Stavridis, and there are many more. All of 
them are saying they support what I am trying to do. It is interesting 
that the

[[Page S3695]]

Senator from Colorado would completely ignore the view and position of 
the most respected people in America.
  I respect the Senator from Colorado. I do not compare his credentials 
to that of the former Secretary of Defense. By the way, Americans for 
Tax Reform is in opposition to the proposal to lift the ban on the 
rocket engines. They point out America has spent over $6 billion--$1 
billion that they have spent on this.
  Also, there was an interesting incident that happened maybe a couple 
of months ago where an individual who is an executive from this outfit 
called ULA made a speech that had a lot of interesting comments in 
it. He obviously didn't know that it was being recorded. The 
interesting thing is that this man, Brett Tobey, vice president of 
engineering for ULA, said during a lecture at the University of 
Colorado in Boulder, CO, last week that the Department of Defense had 
``bent over backwards to lean the field to ULA's advantage in a 
competition with new market entrant SpaceX.'' An executive of ULA 
alleges that the Defense Department bent over backwards to lean the 
field in favor of ULA. If that isn't a graphic example of what is going 
on here, then I don't know what is. He also said that because of the 
SpaceX competition, they were going to have to make cuts in their 
workforce and change the way they do business. For all of these years 
they have not had any competition, but the Defense Department has bent 
over backwards to lean the field to ULA's advantage in a competition 
with the new market entrant Space Exploration Technologies.

  I wish to remind the Chair that about 10 years ago there was an idea 
for Boeing to build a new tanker. It smelled very bad. I, my staff, and 
others pursued it, and it ended up with executives from Boeing going to 
jail. Unfortunately, this is another one of those examples that 
contributes to the profound cynicism of the American people about how 
their money is spent.
  My colleagues have a choice. They can believe the Senator from 
Colorado, and I am sure that the Senator from Illinois will come to the 
floor because that is where Boeing is headquartered. They will talk 
about all of these things, and then you can compare that with Leon 
Panetta--probably one of the most respected men in America and one of 
the great Secretaries of Defense--General Hayden, Michael Morell, 
Michael Rogers, James Stavridis, and all of these people who have no 
dog in this fight. They don't have anything based in their State that 
would affect their State's economy. They have a wealth of experience. I 
would imagine there is at least a century worth of experience in 
defense amongst these individuals. In no way do I disparage the 
experience of the Senator from Colorado, but I will match these guys 
against his any day of the week. They have no dog in this fight nor do 
they have a corporation based in their State.
  After all of these years on the Senate Armed Services Committee, I 
know when something smells bad, just as I did with the Boeing tanker, 
and people ended up in jail. This stinks to high heaven.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I will continue to state the number of 
people who believe it is important that we approach this from the 
standpoint of an amendment that Senator Nelson and I have filed, along 
with a bipartisan group of legislators.
  I will begin with Gen. Mark Welsh, Air Force Chief of Staff. This is 
testimony before the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee in 
2015.

       [V]irtually everybody agrees that we would like to, as the 
     United States of America, not be so reliant on a Russian 
     engine going forward into the future. . . . But the question 
     is how to do it and when will we be ready, because we don't 
     want to cut off our nose to spite our face. . . . all of the 
     technical experts with whom I've consulted tell me this is 
     not a one or two or three-year deal. You're looking at maybe 
     six or seven years to develop an engine and another year or 
     two beyond that to be able to integrate.

  Of course, our amendment would cut it off at 2022 because we believe 
that is the transition we would need in order to provide the kind of 
security that the people of this country expect.
  Let me show some of the national security missions that will be 
delayed if we don't have the ability to use all of the components of 
our current rocket set today.
  The space-based infrared system warning satellites that are designed 
for ballistic missile detection from anywhere in the world, 
particularly countries like North Korea, would be delayed. I had the 
opportunity to go to South Korea just last week where I met with 
General Brooks who talked about the need for us to provide more 
intelligence over North Korea. The day we were there, North Korea once 
again tried to launch a ballistic missile. Thankfully it failed, but 
what happens if it doesn't fail? Are we going to be able to have the 
space-based infrared system in place that we need to be able to protect 
the people of this country? Because if they succeed and we don't know, 
that is catastrophic.
  The Mobile User Objective System and Advanced Extremely High 
Frequency satellite system designed to deliver vital communications 
capabilities to our armed services around the world would both be 
delayed. According to a letter dated May 23 from the Deputy Secretary 
of Defense--again somebody who is very much interested in the future 
and current security of this country--``losing/delaying the capability 
to place position and navigation, communication, missile warning, 
nuclear detection, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 
satellites in orbit would be significant.''
  The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration said before the Senate when asked about what would 
happen with the loss of these rockets: They are counting on these 
rockets to be able to get the number of engines that would satisfy the 
requirements for NASA to fly the Dream Chaser when it comes around in 
2019.
  The Dream Chaser already has a resupply service contract for the 
International Space Station. It is designed to fly on top of one of 
these rockets. If we were to change that, it would no longer have that 
rocket available, and they would undergo significant cost and delay in 
trying to retrofit the rocket just like the Orion space program.
  We can talk about more experts. In April of 2015, the Under Secretary 
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics said:

       There's going to be a period of time where we would like to 
     have the option, possibly, of using RD-180s if necessary. 
     There are much more expensive options available to us but we 
     prefer not to go that way.

  We have shown the chart of how expensive it would be, and now I want 
to show one final chart.
  When we talk about how much money is being spent on rocket engines, I 
would like to point out this chart. If we are concerned about cronies 
from Russia, then let's talk about other areas where we are importing 
from Russia.
  This is from 2013. If you look at where we are, engines and motors 
represent .32 percent of this pie chart. That is how much money is 
being spent on importing engines and motors from Russia. Let's look at 
something like nickel. Nickel is .59 percent of our imports from 
Russia. Arms and ammunition are .56 percent, more than engines and 
motors. Here is an interesting one. Fish, crustaceans, and aquatic 
invertebrates are 1.2 percent of our imports from Russia. Engines and 
motors represent only .32 percent of that.
  We are going to continue to have a very good debate in this body. I 
think Members can come at this from a different approach, and I look 
forward to working out a solution that all Members can be proud that we 
have done what is best for our country, our taxpayers, and our 
security.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I know the Senator from Utah is waiting.
  We have a choice: Believe those who have a vested interest in 
continuing this purchase of Russian rocket engines or believe some of 
the most respected people in America who say we don't need to do it. 
That is what the choice is here.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss and urge my 
colleagues to support amendment No. 4448, the due process guarantee 
amendment.

[[Page S3696]]

  This amendment addresses a little known problem that I believe most 
Americans would be shocked to discover even exists. Under current law, 
the Federal Government has proclaimed the power--has arrogated to 
itself the power to detain indefinitely, without charge or trial, U.S. 
citizens and lawful, permanent residents who are apprehended on 
American soil.
  Let that sink in for just a minute. If you are a U.S. citizen or a 
U.S. green card holder and you are arrested on American soil because 
you are suspected of supporting a terrorist group or other enemy of the 
United States, the Federal Government has claimed the power to detain 
you indefinitely without formally charging you or without offering you 
a trial.
  I am not talking about American citizens who travel to foreign lands 
to take up arms against the United States military and are captured on 
the battlefield. I am talking about U.S. citizens who are apprehended 
right here in the United States of America.
  Under current law, even they can be imprisoned for an unspecified--in 
fact, unlimited--period of time without ever being charged and without 
the benefit of a jury trial to which they are entitled.
  You don't need to be a defense attorney to recognize what an outrage 
this is. Arresting U.S. citizens on American soil and then detaining 
them indefinitely without charges or a trial are obvious deviations 
from the constitutional right to due process of law.
  The last time the Federal Government exercised such power and did so 
without congressional authorization was during the internment of 
Japanese Americans during World War II. Congress responded by passing a 
law to prevent it from happening again. Of course, such legal 
protection should not need to be codified into Federal statute in the 
first place, but they did it anyway.
  The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution states in no uncertain terms 
that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without 
due process of law. Then again, as James Madison reminded us, if men 
were angels, no government would be necessary.
  In the wake of World War II, Congress passed and President Nixon 
signed the Nondetention Act of 1971, which states: ``No citizen shall 
be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except 
pursuant to an Act of Congress.'' Those last few words are absolutely 
crucial: ``except pursuant to an Act of Congress.'' The Nondetention 
Act of 1971 recognized, as I believe most Americans do, that in some 
cases--in some grave, treacherous, unfortunate cases--indefinite 
detention of U.S. citizens may, in the eyes of some, be deemed 
necessary, but the point is that the Federal Government does not 
inherently possess the power of indefinite detention. The extent to 
which such power can even be said to exist within our constitutional 
framework at all is a question that many of us would regard as at least 
debatable.
  Certainly only an act of Congress, such as an authorization for the 
use of military force, or AUMF, or perhaps a declaration of war can 
give the Federal Government that power. Fast forward 40 years, and this 
important legal protection has eroded.
  In 2011, 40 years after the passage of the Nondetention Act of 1971, 
Congress passed its annual National Defense Authorization Act for 
fiscal year 2012, the predecessor of the bill that we are considering 
today. In that version of the NDAA, there was a provision, section 
1021, giving the Federal Government the power to detain U.S. citizens 
indefinitely without trial, even those who were apprehended on American 
soil. It may sound as though section 1021 meets the ``Act of Congress'' 
threshold established by the Nondetention Act of 1971, but importantly 
it does not. It does no such thing. Here is why: The language of 
section 1021 merely presumes that the 2001 AUMF gives the Federal 
Government the right to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely without 
having to prove anything, even though an explicit grant of such power 
appears nowhere at all in the 2001 AUMF.
  My amendment would resolve this problem. In clear and straightforward 
language, my amendment clarifies that a general authorization to use 
military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority on its 
own, shall not be construed to authorize the imprisonment or detention 
without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of 
the United States apprehended in the United States. This means that if 
Congress believes it is necessary to have the power to indefinitely 
detain U.S. citizens who are captured in the United States, then 
Congress must expressly say so in any authorization it passes.
  My amendment recognizes that the due process protections of U.S. 
citizens are far too important to leave up to implied legal 
contemplation.
  The 2001 AUMF does not expressly state that the Federal Government 
has the power to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens who were apprehended 
on American soil. It just doesn't say it. You can look at the 2001 AUMF 
and you will not find that. For those who believe it is somehow in the 
national security interests of the United States for the Federal 
Government to have that power, they should file an amendment to the 
AUMF that says so explicitly, and then we can see what the American 
people think and we can find out, just as importantly, what their 
elected representatives in the House and in the Senate think, or they 
can file an entirely new AUMF that expressly provides such authority.
  This amendment--the one I am discussing today--should not be 
controversial. In fact, in 2012--just a year after the initial 
offending provision that I described a moment ago was passed--the 
Senate passed this amendment with 67 votes, in large part thanks to the 
tireless efforts of my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from 
California, Mrs. Feinstein, who today joins me as a cosponsor of the 
amendment.
  Unfortunately, the due process guarantee amendment was stripped from 
that version of the NDAA passed in 2012 for 2013 during the conference 
process. At the time, some opponents of the amendment were under the 
impression that it would extend due process provisions to citizens 
outside of the United States, but that is undeniably false. The due 
process guarantee amendment applies only to U.S. citizens and lawful 
permanent residents who are apprehended on U.S. soil.
  It has been 4 years since that misunderstanding prevented Congress 
from passing this commonsense bipartisan reform. That is more than 
enough time for this institution to gain clarity on what this amendment 
does do and, just as importantly, on what this amendment does not do. 
So it is time that we finally pass this amendment, and I urge each of 
my colleagues to do so.
  Mr. PAUL. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. LEE. Yes.
  Mr. PAUL. Four years ago we passed legislation under the Defense 
authorization that allows the American Government to detain an American 
citizen without a trial. Think about that. One of our basic rights, one 
of our most important rights is the right to a trial, to be 
represented, to have a jury of our peers.
  You say: Well, it will never be used. Well, President Obama 
recognized this. He said: This is a terrible power, and I promise never 
to use it. Any power that is so terrible that a President says he is 
not going to use it should not be on the books.
  As the Senator from Utah said, it is not about having laws that 
require angels to be in charge of your government. Someday there will 
be someone in charge of the government who makes a grievous mistake, 
like rounding up the Japanese. So we have to be very careful about 
giving power to our government. That is what the challenge is here.
  Many will say: Well, we are at war, and when at war you have to have 
the law of war.
  What is the law of war also known as? Martial law. But this is a war 
that does not seem to have an end. They are not asking for a 1- or 2-
year period in which there won't be trials; they are asking you to 
relinquish your right to trial for a war that may have no end.
  I want you to imagine this. Who could these enemy combatants be who 
may not get trials? Imagine you are an Arab-American in Dearborn, MI, 
and you send an email to someone overseas. Maybe that person is a bad 
person and maybe there is a connection, but shouldn't a person in 
Dearborn, MI,

[[Page S3697]]

have a right to defend themselves in court and say: I was just sending 
an email to them and I said a few stupid things, but I am not a 
terrorist. Shouldn't they get the right to defend themselves?
  We need to be very careful that, as we fight this long war, we don't 
wake up one day and say we won the war, but we lost what we stood for. 
We lost the Bill of Rights. We lost it to our soldiers. I know soldiers 
who lost two arms and a leg fighting for us, and they come back and say 
they were fighting for the Bill of Rights. That is what this should be 
about--protecting the Bill of Rights while they are gone.
  So the question I have for my esteemed colleague is--some will say: 
Well, they get a hearing. They get a habeas hearing. They go before a 
judge. Isn't that due process?
  Is a habeas hearing equivalent to due process?
  Mr. LEE. No. No. Due process can include habeas, but someone might 
say habeas corpus is the beginning of due process, not the end. 
Sometimes it occurs at the beginning, sometimes at the end, but 
regardless of when in the process it occurs, a habeas proceeding does 
not represent the sum total universe of what due process means.
  You can't read the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments of the 
U.S. Constitution to see that what happened in the version of NDAA that 
we passed in 2011 was an affront to the constitutional order. It was an 
aberration.
  We are not asking for anything drastic. All we are asking here is 
that before the government takes this step--the type of drastic step 
you are describing--that at minimum we require Congress to expressly 
authorize that. Is that really too much?
  For those who would say that we are at war, we are in danger--and I 
understand that. There are those who don't like our way of life. They 
even perhaps want to do us harm. For those who would say that we are at 
war and we have to take that into account and consider that, my 
response is, OK, if that is the case, then let's at least do it the way 
we are supposed to do it. Let's at least have that discussion rather 
than doing it by subterfuge, rather than doing it under a cloud of 
uncertainty, rather than doing it by implication. We need to do so 
expressly. That is all this amendment does.
  Mr. PAUL. Let me clarify in a followup question. If an American 
citizen goes to Syria and fights with ISIS and is captured on the 
battlefield, this amendment would not mean they get a trial.
  Mr. LEE. No.
  Mr. PAUL. They could still be held as an enemy combatant.
  Mr. LEE. That is correct. This wouldn't cover them at all because 
that person is outside the United States. That person is captured on a 
battlefield outside the United States. That person wouldn't be covered 
under this amendment.
  Mr. PAUL. Let's also be clear on what we are talking about. People 
who have been defined as enemy combatants are not always holding a 
weapon. You can have a propagandist. We have had propagandists who have 
been killed overseas who were propagandists for the enemy. So it is 
conceivable that an American citizen could be exchanging information 
and saying something derogatory about us or something in favor of the 
enemy, and that could be considered to be--that person is now a 
propagandist.
  My point is, shouldn't they have a day in court to determine the 
facts and have representation as opposed to being plucked up and 
saying: You are going to Guantanamo Bay for the rest of your life 
because you made some criticism, and now the state has deemed you an 
enemy.
  Mr. LEE. That is absolutely right, and that is precisely why we need 
these protections. That helps illustrate the slippery-slope nature of 
this problem. And it also emphasizes why it is that there are some in 
our body who want to make sure this power exists in the government, 
that we must pass legislation affirmatively making it so, expressly 
providing that power rather than doing it indirectly. That is all our 
amendment does.
  This is indeed a slippery slope. If all you have to do to 
indefinitely detain someone without charge, without trial, suspending 
their rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth amendments--if 
that is all you have to do, is charge them in a certain way, then our 
constitutional protections have become weakened, indeed, to a dangerous 
degree.
  Mr. PAUL. Is it currently true that this amendment is being blocked 
by one Senator from gaining a vote?
  Mr. LEE. We are trying to get a vote. This got a vote in 2012. It 
received 67 votes from people of both parties, votes from some 
Members--including at least one person whom you may be thinking of who 
has objections to it now. We need this to get a vote. If we are voting 
on other amendments, which we should be doing, this should get a vote. 
Nobody has explained to me why this should not at a minimum receive a 
vote. If somebody doesn't like this, fine, let them vote against it. 
But we should have a vote on this because this is relevant to the 
National Defense Authorization Act. It was the National Defense 
Authorization Act passed in 2011 that was the vehicle for enacting this 
into law.
  Mr. PAUL. One concluding point I would make would be that we have 
time in the Senate body to vote about which rockets we are going to 
use, made in which State and in which country. Shouldn't we take time 
to vote about the abrogation or possible abrogation of the Bill of 
Rights, of the right to a trial by jury?
  I think this is an eminently important issue, should not be pushed 
under the rug, and that no one should be afraid to take a stand. Not 
everyone will agree, but we should be allowed to take a stand on the 
Senate floor, openly debate, and have a vote on whether you will have 
your right to trial by jury or whether we are going to abbreviate that 
right and say we are at war. But realize that if you think your rights 
can be abbreviated in times of war, this is a war--that the people who 
tell you they are going to abbreviate your rights are also telling you 
that this war has no end, that there is no conceivable end to this war, 
and that the diminishment of your liberty, the loss of your right to 
trial by jury, will go on and on without end.
  I wholeheartedly support the amendment by my fellow Senator from 
Utah, and I advocate for having a vote on the Senate floor.
  Mr. LEE. I agree.
  I note the presence of my distinguished colleague from California, 
and I yield the floor so that she can address the body.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senators, and I thank the 
Presiding Officer.
  I have listened to this debate, and I rise to urge my colleagues to 
allow a vote on this due process guarantee amendment.
  Senator Lee has filed it, I am a cosponsor, and I am delighted to be 
a cosponsor. We actually voted on an earlier version of this amendment 
in 2012, so this is nothing new. What Members may not recall is that it 
passed with 67 votes as an amendment to this bill for fiscal year 2013.
  I would also note that thanks to then-Chairman Leahy, the bill on 
which this amendment is based had a hearing in the Judiciary Committee 
on February 29, 2012.
  So this bill has come before this body before. It got 67 votes, and 
it had a hearing in the Judiciary Committee 4 years ago. Unfortunately, 
the amendment was taken out of the NDAA in conference that year.
  It is my hope that the Senate will pass this amendment again this 
year and that the House will support it so that the law will clearly 
protect Americans in the United States from indefinite detention by 
their own government.
  Members may say: Well, this isn't going to happen. We are not going 
to do this.
  But we have done it. I remember as a small child going just south of 
San Francisco to a racetrack called Tanforan. It was no longer a 
racetrack; it was a detention center for Japanese Americans during 
World War II, and there were hundreds of families housed there for 
years against their will.
  To prevent this from ever happening again, Congress passed and 
President Nixon signed into law the Non-Detention Act of 1971 which 
clearly states: ``No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained 
by the United States

[[Page S3698]]

except pursuant to an act of Congress.'' That sounds good, but it 
didn't go far enough.
  Despite the shameful history of the indefinite detention of Americans 
and the legal controversy since 9/11, some in the Senate have advocated 
for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens during debate on the 
Defense authorization bill in past years. These Members have argued 
that the Supreme Court's plurality decision in the 2004 case of Hamdi 
v. Rumsfeld supports their view. However, the Hamdi case involved an 
American captured by the United States military on the battlefield in 
Afghanistan. Yaser Esam Hamdi was a U.S. citizen who took up arms on 
behalf of the Taliban. He was captured on the battlefield in 
Afghanistan, not on United States soil. That is the difference. While 
the Supreme Court did effectively uphold Hamdi's military detention, 
the Supreme Court did not accept the government's broad assertions of 
executive authority to detain citizens without charge or trial.

  In fact, the Hamdi decision says clearly that it covers only 
``individuals falling into the limited category we are considering,'' 
and did not foreclose the possibility that indefinite detention of a 
U.S. citizen would raise a constitutional problem at a later date.
  Since Hamdi was decided in 2004, decisions by the lower courts have 
contributed to the legal ambiguity when it comes to the detention of 
U.S. citizens apprehended in our very own country. You can look at the 
case of Jose Padilla. He is a U.S. citizen arrested in Chicago in 2002. 
Padilla was initially detained by the Bush administration under a 
material witness warrant based on the 9/11 terrorist attacks and was 
later designated as an enemy combatant who allegedly conspired with Al 
Qaeda to carry out terrorist attacks, including a plot to detonate a 
dirty bomb inside our country.
  Padilla was transferred to a military brig in South Carolina, where 
he was detained for 3\1/2\ years while seeking his freedom by filing a 
writ of habeas corpus in Federal court. Now, it is important to note 
that Padilla was never charged with attempting to carry out the dirty 
bomb plot. Instead, he was released from military custody in November 
2005 and transferred to civilian Federal custody in Florida, where he 
was indicted on other charges in Federal court related to terrorist 
plots overseas.
  In a 2003 decision by the Second Circuit known as Padilla v. 
Rumsfeld, the court of appeals held that the 2001 authorization for use 
of military force, which we call the AUMF, did not authorize Padilla's 
military detention. The decision stated: ``We conclude that clear 
Congressional authorization is required for detentions of American 
citizens on American soil, because 18 U.S.C. Section 4001(a), the Non-
Detention Act, prohibits such detentions absent specific Congressional 
authorization.''
  So the Padilla case bounced back and forth from the Second Circuit up 
to the Supreme Court and then to the Fourth Circuit. The legality of 
his military detention was never conclusively resolved. Thus there 
remains ambiguity about whether a congressional authorization for the 
use of military force permits the indefinite detention of United States 
citizens arrested on United States soil.
  So let me say that 12 years--let me repeat, 12 years--after Padilla 
was initially arrested and detained, he was finally sentenced to 21 
years in prison in 2014.
  The simple point is that we can protect national security while also 
ensuring that the constitutional due process rights of every American 
captured within the United States are protected.
  That is what this amendment would do. Like the amendment that passed 
here in 2012 with 67 votes on this floor, this amendment would prevent 
the government from using a general authorization for the use of 
military force to apprehend Americans at home and detain them without 
charge or trial indefinitely. So no one could be picked up and not 
charged and held indefinitely.
  It states very simply in our legislation: ``A general authorization 
to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority, 
on its own, shall not be construed to authorize the imprisonment or 
detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent 
resident of the United States apprehended in the United States.''
  The amendment also modifies the existing subsection (a) of the Non-
Detention Act, so it covers lawful permanent residents of the United 
States and ensures that any detention is consistent with the 
Constitution.
  So new subsection (a) will read: ``No citizen or lawful permanent 
resident of the United States shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained 
by the United States except consistent with the Constitution and 
pursuant to an Act of Congress that expressly authorizes such 
imprisonment or detention.''
  Now, let me explain the impact of these changes to the law. First, 
the U.S. Government will continue to be able to detain U.S. citizens or 
lawful permanent residents on a foreign battlefield pursuant to an 
authorization to use military force, like what we passed after 9/11. 
That AUMF provides the authority to detain Al Qaeda, ISIL, and 
affiliated terrorist fighters.
  In other words, if the government needs to detain an enemy combatant 
on a foreign battlefield under a post-9/11 congressional authorization 
to use force, that is not barred, even if the enemy combatant is, in 
fact, a U.S. citizen. Indeed, the Supreme Court held in Hamdi that the 
AUMF is ``explicit authorization'' for that limited kind of detention. 
So the amendment does not disturb the Hamdi decision.
  Second, when acting with respect to citizens or lawful permanent 
residents apprehended at home, the amendment makes clear that a general 
authorization for the use of military force does not authorize the 
detention, without charge or trial, of citizens or green card holders 
like Padilla, who are apprehended inside the United States. Instead, 
they should be arrested and charged like other terrorists captured in 
the United States.
  Now, the simple point is that indefinite military detention of 
Americans apprehended in the United States is not the American way and 
must not be allowed. In the United States, the FBI and other law 
enforcement and intelligence agencies have proven time and again that 
they are up to the challenge of detecting, stopping, arresting, and 
convicting terrorists found on United States soil.
  Our law enforcement personnel have successfully arrested, detained, 
and convicted literally hundreds of terrorists, both before and after 
9/11. Specifically, there were 580 terrorism-related convictions in the 
Federal criminal courts between 9/11 and the end of 2014. That is 
according to the Department of Justice.
  More recently, Federal prosecutors have charged 85 men and women 
around our country in connection with ISIL since March of 2014. 
Suspected terrorists can still be detained within the U.S. criminal 
justice system using at least the following four options: One, they can 
be charged with a Federal or State crime and held. Two, some can be 
held for violating immigration laws. Three, they can be held as a 
material witness as part of a Federal grand jury proceeding. Or, four, 
they can be detained under section 412 of the PATRIOT Act, which 
provides that an alien may be detained for up to 6 months if their 
release ``will threaten the national security of the United States or 
the safety of the community or any person.''
  Simply put, there is no shortage of authority for U.S. law 
enforcement to take the necessary actions on our soil to protect the 
homeland. Some may ask why this legislation protects green card holders 
as well as citizens. Others may ask why the bill does not protect all 
persons apprehended in the United States from indefinite military 
detention.
  Let me make clear that I would support providing the protections in 
this amendment to all persons in the United States, but the question 
comes: is there political support to expand it to cover others besides 
U.S. citizens and green card holders? We went through this in 2012, I 
believe, before the Presiding Officer was here. The overriding 
situation is to prevent the Federal Government from moving in and 
picking up Americans and holding them without charge or trial, as was 
done with Japanese Americans after World War II.
  Finally, with the passage of this, we will close out that chapter 
once and for all. So this is not about whether citizens apprehended in 
the United States,

[[Page S3699]]

like Jose Padilla or others who would do us harm, should be captured, 
interrogated, incarcerated, and severely punished. They should be to 
the fullest extent the law allows, but not an innocent American picked 
up off the street and held without charge or trial--perhaps because of 
the person's name or looks or heritage.
  So what about how a future President might abuse his or her authority 
to indefinitely detain people militarily here in the United States? Our 
Constitution gives everyone in the United States basic due process 
rights. The Fifth Amendment provides that ``no person shall be deprived 
of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.'' This is a 
basic tenet of our Constitution and our values.
  People are entitled to notice of charges, to an opportunity to be 
heard, and to a fair proceeding before a neutral arbiter. In criminal 
cases, the accused also has a right to a speedy and public trial by a 
jury of their peers. So these protections are really a sacred part of 
who we are as Americans. I think it is something we all take great 
pride in, and now it is, once again, the time. We did this in 2012, in 
the fiscal year 2013 NDAA bill.
  It received 67 votes on this floor. I would hope that we would not be 
blocked from taking another vote on this. We experimented with 
indefinite detention during World War II. It was a mistake we all 
realize and a betrayal of our core values. So let's not repeat it.
  I want to thank Senator Lee, Senator Tom Udall, Senator Paul, Senator 
Cruz, and others who have worked with us on this issue over the years. 
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, when we ask the men and women of this 
country to go to war on our behalf, we make a solemn promise to take 
care of them, to support them while they are abroad, and take care of 
them when they come home. As a daughter of a World War II veteran, this 
is a promise I take very seriously, and I know that my colleagues do 
too.
  One aspect of this promise that I have been proud to fight for is the 
idea that we should help warriors who have sustained grievous injuries 
achieve their dream of starting families. This is something that is 
hard for many people to think about, but it is a reality for far too 
many men and women, people like Tyler Wilson. He is a veteran I met who 
is paralyzed and nearly died in a firefight in Afghanistan.
  After years of surgeries and rehab and learning an entirely new way 
of living, he met Crystal, the woman he wanted to spend the rest of his 
life with. Together, they wanted to start a family. I believe we have 
an obligation as a nation to help them. That is why I have been 
fighting to expand VA care to pay for IVF treatments for people like 
Tyler. It is why I was so encouraged that 6 months ago the Pentagon 
announced a pilot program to allow servicemembers who are getting ready 
to deploy--the very men and women who are willing to put their lives on 
the line in defense of our country--an opportunity at cryopreservation.

  That is a practice already widely used among the general population. 
It gives our deploying members not only the ability to have options for 
family planning in the event they are injured on the battlefield, but 
it gives them peace of mind. It says they don't have to worry about 
choosing between defending their country or a chance at a family 
someday. As Secretary Ash Carter said himself, this was a move that 
``honors the desire of our men and women to commit themselves 
completely to their careers, or to serve courageously in combat, while 
preserving their ability to have children in the future.''
  I couldn't agree with that sentiment more. While the pilot program 
was not groundbreaking and, in fact, has been used by the British Armed 
Forces for years, I believe the Pentagon's announcement spoke volumes 
about having respect for servicemembers who are willing to risk 
suffering catastrophic injuries on our behalf to tell them: No matter 
what happens on the battlefield, your country will be there for you 
with the best care available.
  I applaud Secretary Ash Carter for his leadership. It is the right 
thing to do for our young men and women who have big plans after their 
service is complete. That is why I was so shocked by one line in this 
massive NDAA bill before us, a line that brings me to the floor today. 
Blink and you will miss it. On page 1,455 of the 1,600-page bill, in 
one line in a funding chart, you will find an attempt to roll back 
access to the care members of our military earned in their service to 
our country.
  That line--that simple little line--will zero out the very program 
that helps men and women in our military realize their dreams of having 
a family, even if they go on to suffer catastrophic injuries while 
fighting on our behalf. The very program that Secretary Carter got off 
the ground just 6 months ago, the promise the Pentagon made, this bill 
throws in the trash.
  Taking away that dream is wrong. It is not what our country is about. 
While I don't know how or why that line got into this bill, I am here 
today to shine a light on it in the hopes that we can get this fixed 
before it is too late.
  In the past day, I have talked to both the chair and ranking member, 
and I am hopeful that we can change course. We simply cannot allow this 
provision or others like it to slip through the cracks and continue to 
chip away at the care that these servicemembers deserve. That is not 
what this country is about. Many of my colleagues are so quick to honor 
our military members with their words, but our servicemembers need to 
see that same commitment with their actions.
  That is why I am here today urging my colleagues to keep this vital 
service intact for members of our military. We can take action that 
truly shows our servicemembers and our veterans that we understand this 
service is a cost of war and it is a cost that we, as a country, are 
willing to take on.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I am going to try to make sense out of 
some of the discussion that has been going on, which has been quite 
detailed and very esoteric, with regard to the Russian rocket engine 
which is the main engine in the tail of the Atlas V rocket--the first 
stage of the Atlas V.
  Why is there a Russian engine? In the early 1990s, at the time of the 
disintegration of the Soviet Union, the United States went in to try to 
help secure the nuclear material and nuclear weapons. It was clearly in 
the interests of the United States and her allies that loose nukes not 
get into the hands of rogue nations or rogue groups.
  At the same time, it was clearly in the interests of the United 
States that we try to prevent all of the experts, the Russian 
scientists and engineers that had been involved in the Russian or the 
Soviet Union's rocket program--and it was an exceptional program--from 
going to rogue nations or to rogue groups. Read: Iran.
  Thus it became apparent, when U.S. scientists, engineers, and space 
pioneers visited the Russian engine plant, that it was this 
extraordinary engine that had this high compression with liquid oxygen 
as a fuel and also kerosene. As a result, it was clearly in the 
interests of the United States not only to prevent loose nukes and 
scientists leaving but to keep them interested and employed. Remember, 
this was in a Soviet Union that was disintegrating at the moment. 
Therefore, it was in the interest of keeping that Russian rocket engine 
manufacturing facility employing those engineers and scientists. In one 
instance, that facility has been called Energomash, and in another 
instance, it has been made reference to as Roscosmos.
  Therefore, private companies in the United States arranged to buy the 
Russian engines and keep them employed and, at the same time, to obtain 
the plans with the idea that down the road the United States would 
manufacture the same Russian engine, but its manufacture would be done 
in the United States. That intention was never carried out.
  As a result, that leads us to where we are today. Today, we still buy 
the Russian engines. On average, that is costing us $88 million a year. 
How much is that of the total expenditures that we buy from Russia in 
other goods? It is less than a percent. In fact, that $88 million a 
year, on average, is one-third of 1 percent that is purchasing this 
excellent engine. That excellent engine happens to be the workhorse 
engine of

[[Page S3700]]

the Atlas V, which is our most reliable rocket for military launches, 
as well as future NASA launches, as well as commercial launches of 
communications satellites in orbit.
  The whole fracas that has been engulfing this Defense bill here is 
because now that same Russian Federation, where it was so important for 
us to keep employing its scientists and engineers 25 years ago,--today 
is being led by a former KGB agent, Vladimir Putin. He is doing things 
that we don't like. He runs over Ukraine and he takes a part called 
Crimea. He is pushing into eastern Ukraine and he is doing all kinds of 
bad things there that is threatening the freedom of the people of 
Ukraine.
  As articulated by Senator McCain, naturally we would not want to 
continue to buy those Russian engines, which is basically helping 
Vladimir Putin, even though it is minuscule--less than one-third of 1 
percent of the total goods that we buy from Russia.
  So that brings us to this point: How do we get out of the mess? How 
we get out of the mess is that we build our own engine. We should have 
done that years ago. But now we can actually build a better engine and 
not plug into the same rocket, because if it is a different engine you 
cannot plug into the same rocket in the Atlas V. You have to basically 
plug it into a different rocket. As we speak, there is now a 
competition going on to develop a replacement engine. In one case, it 
is called the BE-4. In another case it is called an Aerojet Rocketdyne 
engine. That competition is going to continue, but we can't do it 
overnight. So it is going to take some time.
  An optimistic estimate might say that the engine is ready in about 
2019, and then you have to test-fire in the new rocket that you have 
developed. So a realistic time of when the new engine is available is 
at the end of the year 2022.
  So what do we do to make sure we have the rockets to have assured 
access to space between now and the end of 2022? That is what all this 
discussion is on the floor.
  On the one hand, there is a very successful company called SpaceX. 
They are now certified with a rocket called the Falcon 9, and that 
rocket has won some competitions and has put payloads in space, 
including one defense payload that I know of. There may be more, but I 
do know that they have been certified for the Department of Defense.
  Its competitor is the other company, United Launch Alliance, which is 
a combination of Boeing and Lockheed. They have been successfully 
launching the Atlas V without a miss for years and years. I think the 
successful number of rocket launches is something in excess of 50 or 
maybe 60. Thus, it is a proven workhorse.
  We never want to get to the position where we have just one rocket 
company, because if something happened, you want to have a backup 
because we have to get satellites into space to protect our national 
security, and we have to do it over this period of time from now until 
the end of 2022. Therefore, how do you keep them going alive if you 
eliminate the ability of being able to buy the Russian engine?
  That is what all of the very emotional and very well-meaning speeches 
on the floor have been about--in one case, United Launch Alliance, and 
in another case, SpaceX. For the good of the country, we have to have 
both until we can develop, test, and successfully fly the replacement 
engine for the Russian engine.
  As we speak, these discussions, by the way, that have been going on 
over the past several weeks, and with intensity over the past few days, 
continue. It is certainly my hope that we are going to get resolution 
and can get an agreement on this and a way to go forward so that we can 
get this issue behind us and move on with a defense bill that is so 
important to the future of this country.
  Mr. President, I wanted to lay out the predicate of what this is all 
about. When you start getting into the weeds about this number of 
launches and that number of launches, all of it boils down to what this 
Senator has just shared. So I hope we get resolution. And since I am 
basically an optimist, I think we will.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, just to continue--and I do with some 
reluctance--on this whole issue of rocket engines, as I mentioned 
earlier, there is an individual who is one of the head executives of 
ULA who was recorded, and in the recording he talks about ULA and the 
relationship and how they have an ``in'' with the Department of 
Defense, and I just want to quote from his recording. He was talking 
about the rocket engine. He said:

       But unfortunately, it's built by the Soviet Union, and 
     there's a couple of people, one person in particular, this 
     guy right here, John McCain, who basically doesn't like us.

  Remember, this is an employee of ULA.
  He continues:

       He's like this with Elon Musk, and so Elon Musk says, why 
     don't you guys go, why don't you go after United Launch 
     Alliance and see if you can get that engine to be outlawed. 
     So he was able to get legislation through that basically got 
     our number of engines down that we could use for national 
     security space competitions down to four; we needed nine. . . 
     . And so, then, we got his friend, I told you about that big 
     factory down in Alabama, in Decatur, and basically this is 
     Richard Shelby, Senator Richard Shelby, from Alabama, both 
     Republicans, and he basically at the last minute, at December 
     of last year, they were doing an omnibus bill to keep the 
     government running. And what he did is talk to John McCain 
     and parachuted in, in the middle of the night, and added some 
     language into the appropriations. . . . Shelby's in charge of 
     appropriations. He says ignore McCain's language and 
     basically allowed United Launch Alliance to pick any engine 
     they want from any country abroad.

  Then he goes on to say:

       But we can't afford that any more because the price points 
     are coming down as low as 60 million dollars per launch 
     vehicle, and on the best day you'll see us bid at 125 million 
     dollars, or twice that number, and if you were to take and 
     add in that capabilities cost, it's closer to 200 million 
     dollars. . . . SpaceX will take them to court if they don't, 
     so they have demonstrated ability to say, if you do not allow 
     us to compete on an apples-to-apples basis, that we will take 
     you to court, and you will lose.
       So if you saw just recently, they bid the second GPS-III 
     launch, ULA opted to not bid that. Because the government was 
     not happy with us not bidding that contract because they had 
     felt that they'd bent over backwards to lean the field in our 
     advantage.

  I repeat, this is what an executive of ULA said. ``Because the 
government was not happy with us not bidding that contract because they 
had felt that they'd bent over backwards to lean the field in our 
advantage.'' That is from an executive of ULA. Is there any better 
evidence of what he said?
  Continuing the quote from the recording:

       But we even said we don't bid, because we saw it as a cost 
     sheet up between us and SpaceX, so now we're going to have to 
     take and figure out how to bid these things much lower cost. 
     And the government can't just say ULA's got a great track 
     record, they've got 105 launches in a row, and 100 percent 
     mission success and we can give it to them on a silver 
     platter even though their costs are two or three times as 
     high.

  Two or three times as high. Mr. President, this is what makes the 
American people cynical about the way we do business.
  Before I suggest the absence of a quorum, let me just say that we are 
going to be moving the amendments on interpreters and Guantanamo, and 
so I alert my colleagues that we will be doing that shortly.
  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. SULLIVAN. 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. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of what we 
have been doing on the Senate floor the past 2 weeks--moving forward on 
the National Defense Authorization Act. I wish to pay a compliment and 
my deepest respect to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, to 
the ranking member, and to all the members of the Armed Services 
Committee who have been focused on this bill that we have been putting 
forward in this Congress and every Congress for the last half century.
  Our forces are under strain at a time when Henry Kissinger said 
before the Armed Services Committee that ``the United States has not 
faced a more diverse and complex array of crises since the end of the 
Second World War.''

[[Page S3701]]

  Here is what some of our top military officials have told our 
committee about the threats that are rising globally and the dramatic 
reduction in our military forces. Chief of Staff of the Army, GEN Mark 
Milley, recently stated that due to cuts and threats, our Army is at a 
state of ``high military risk'' when it comes to being ready enough to 
defend our interests. That is a very serious statement by the Chief of 
Staff of the Army, ``high military risk'' for our military and the 
ability of the U.S. Army to do its mission. He also said that when it 
comes to Russia and its new aggressiveness, we are ``outranged and 
outgunned.''
  Let me spend a little bit of time on the new challenge from Russia. 
There are many provisions in this bill--which is why it is so 
important--that will strengthen our military threat with regard to 
Russia--something that, as a Senator from Alaska, I am very concerned 
about.
  Nobody spoke more eloquently and compellingly about our country's 
credibility than President Reagan when he stated that his philosophy of 
dealing with our potential adversaries was that ``we maintain the peace 
through our strength; weakness only invites aggression.'' And he 
matched his rhetoric with credible action. That is what we need to do 
with regard to the NDAA, and that is why it is so important that we 
move forward and pass this bill.
  But the Russian threat is not just in Europe, it also in the Arctic, 
and those threats--we are hearing more and more in committee testimony 
on and what the Russians are doing. For example, there are 4 new Arctic 
brigades; a new Arctic command; 14 operational airfields in the Russian 
Arctic by the end of this year; up to 50 airfields by 2020; a 30-
percent increase in Russian special forces in the Arctic; 40 Russian 
Government and privately owned icebreakers, with 11 additional 
icebreakers in development right now, including 3 new nuclear-powered 
icebreakers; huge land claims in the Arctic; increased long-range air 
patrols with Bear bombers--the most since the Cold War--and pilots in 
Alaska are intercepting these Russian bombers on a weekly basis; and a 
recent deployment of two sophisticated S-400 air defense systems again 
to the Arctic. Why are they doing this? Because it is a strategic 
place, new transportation routes, enormous resources.
  Our own Secretary of Defense stated in testimony that he realized we 
were late to the Arctic given how strategic and important it is. Right 
now we have no Arctic port infrastructure; two icebreakers--that is it; 
no plans to increase Arctic-capable special forces; and a lack of 
surveillance capabilities in this strategic region of the world.
  Why do I mention this? Because in this NDAA we start to address the 
problem. Just as we did in last year's NDAA, we start to lay the 
foundation for having a strategic vision of what is going on in the 
Arctic, the way the Russians are, and we are beginning to be prepared 
in an area of the world that is absolutely critical to U.S. security. 
Provisions include the first steps to build up an appropriate strategic 
Arctic port. We will also build up our Arctic domain awareness, and we 
will have a much better sense of what is going on in this region not 
only with regard to the Russians but what the Chinese are doing in this 
critical area of the world.
  Make no mistake--America is an Arctic nation. We are an Arctic nation 
because of my State, the State of Alaska. This NDAA begins the 
important process to start addressing the strategic concerns we are 
seeing in the Arctic and securing our Nation in a way that is important 
for all of us.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, after discussions with the Senator from 
New Hampshire, the Senator from Missouri, the Senator from South 
Carolina, and the Senator from Kansas, I ask unanimous consent to have 
a colloquy with these Senators.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. We are going to propose a unanimous consent request that 
the Senate take up and pass both the issue of the interpreters to our 
Afghan allies and the issue of Guantanamo Bay. I know there is 
objection, so we will await those individuals since it would require 
their presence on the floor.
  I will say a few words about the SIV Program. The fact is, the 
Senator from Colorado, maybe the Senator from Alabama, maybe the 
Senator from someplace else, has an axe to grind here: They didn't get 
a vote on their amendment. They didn't get their vote, so, by God, 
nobody is going to get a vote.
  Do you know what they neglect here? We are talking about our men and 
women in the military who literally saved their lives. And they are 
using their parochial reasons, because they didn't get their vote, to 
object. My friends, that is not what the job of a United States Senator 
should be.
  GEN David Petraeus:

       Throughout my time in uniform, I saw how important our in-
     country allies are in the performance of our missions. Many 
     of our Afghan allies have not only been mission-essential--
     serving as the eyes and ears of our own troops and often 
     saving American lives--they have risked their own lives and 
     their families' lives in the line of duty. Protecting these 
     allies is as much a matter of American national morality as 
     it is American national security.

  So the Senators who have come and objected disagree with an effort we 
are making on the issue of American national morality, in the eyes of 
GEN David Petraeus.
  General Nicholson is over there now. He says basically the same 
thing:

       They followed and supported our troops in combat at great 
     personal risk, ensuring the safety and effectiveness of 
     Coalition members on the ground. Many have been injured or 
     killed in the line of duty, a testament to their commitment, 
     resolve, and dedication to support our interests. Continuing 
     our promise of the American dream is more than in our 
     national interests, it is a testament to our decency and 
     long-standing tradition of honoring our allies.

  That is from General Nicholson, who is over there now.
  There is no more admired diplomat in America than Ryan Crocker. He 
states:

       This is a very personal issue for me. I was U.S. Ambassador 
     to Iraq from 2002 to 2009 and to Afghanistan from 2011 to 
     2012. I observed firsthand the courage of the citizens who 
     risked their lives trying to help their own countries by 
     helping the United States. It takes a special kind of heroism 
     for them to serve alongside of us.

  GEN Stanley McChrystal:

       I ask for your help in upholding this obligation by 
     appropriating additional Afghan SIVs to bring our allies to 
     safety in America. They have risked their own and their 
     families' lives in the line of duty.

  I will stop with this. General Campbell says the same thing:

       They frequently live in fear that they are or their 
     families will be targeted for kidnappings and death. Many 
     have suffered this fate already. The SIV program offers hope 
     that their sacrifices on our behalf will not be forgotten.

  I would hope that a Senator who comes to object to this act of 
humanitarian--a moral obligation, as stated by these respected military 
leaders, that they wouldn't object because they didn't get a vote on 
their amendment. That would be a reason to stop this act that is a 
moral obligation of this country? Well, if they come over and object, 
then they have their priorities badly screwed up. If these people are 
killed, they will have nobody to answer to but their families.
  I hope we will pass this by unanimous consent and not have--for a 
parochial, their own selfish reason--some Senator come and object.
  I yield to the Senator from New Hampshire, Mrs. Shaheen.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I say thank you to Senator McCain. Thank you for your 
leadership and thanks to Senator Jack Reed for his leadership on this 
issue. As the Senator points out, there are real lives at stake. If we 
are not able to continue the Special Immigrant Visa Program for those 
Afghans who have helped us during the conflict in Afghanistan, then--we 
know the Taliban has already murdered a number of them, their family 
members. As the Senator points out, to have someone object to going 
forward with this amendment--not related to the program at all but 
because people have other personal issues they want to address--it 
would be unfortunate and not in this country's interest.
  What we are actually hoping we can vote on today is a carefully 
crafted amendment. It addresses the legitimate concerns that people 
have raised about this program. We spent hours over the last few days 
and last night

[[Page S3702]]

trying to come to some agreement to address those issues, and I think 
the legislation before us does that.
  The concern, as I understand, isn't about this program and about what 
is in this program; it is about individuals who have their own issues 
unrelated to this program that they want to see addressed. I understand 
that. We all have our issues, but that is not what we ought to be 
voting on at this point.
  The Senator pointed out that Ryan Crocker, who served both in 
Afghanistan and Iraq, has talked about the importance of this program, 
as have so many of our generals and those who have served. I want to 
quote from an op-ed piece he wrote last month about the importance of 
Congress addressing this program. He said:

       In an era of partisan rancor, this has been an area where 
     Republicans and Democrats have acted together. Congress has 
     continued to support policies aimed at protecting our wartime 
     allies by renewing the Afghanistan SIV program annually--
     demonstrating a shared understanding that taking care of 
     those who took care of us is not just an act of basic 
     decency; it is also in our national interest. American 
     credibility matters. Abandoning these allies would tarnish 
     our reputation and endanger those we are today asking to 
     serve alongside U.S. forces and diplomats.

  As we all know, this country owes a great debt to the Afghans who 
provided essential assistance to the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. 
Thousands of brave men and women put themselves and their families at 
risk to help our soldiers and diplomats accomplish their mission and 
return home safely. We must not turn our back on these individuals. We 
must not imperil our ability to secure this kind of assistance in the 
future, and a ``no'' vote today would do exactly that.
  I urge this body to move forward to allow a vote on a compromise that 
has been supported by everybody who was raising concerns about this 
program.
  I would like to yield to my colleague from South Carolina.
  Mr. McCAIN. Senator Moran first.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Sorry. Senator Moran.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, thank you very much, and I appreciate the 
opportunity to be here on the Senate floor today with my colleagues.
  I, too, have an amendment to strike section 1023 of this bill, the 
national defense authorization bill, S. 2943. This is amendment No. 
4068. We will seek unanimous consent for this amendment to be 
considered, but what it does is strike section 1023, which provides for 
the design and planning related to construction of a facility in the 
United States to house detainees. This is part of the constant effort 
by some to close Guantanamo Bay and bring the detainees to the United 
States.
  In my view, it is essential for the United States to maintain the 
ability to hold terrorists, both those who were captured in 2002, as 
well as those whom we may find on the battlefields of terrorism with 
ISIS today. Since 2008, the effort has been to close Guantanamo Bay 
with the objective of bringing those detainees to the United States. 
This Congress, this Senate has spoken time and time again both in the 
predecessors' legislation to this bill we are considering today, NDAA 
of past years, as well as the appropriations process in which we 
prohibit those detainees from being brought to the United States and 
housed in a facility in the United States.
  In fact, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense have, on 
numerous occasions, confirmed that the President has no legal authority 
to close Gitmo or to transfer detainees to the United States. For some 
reason, the national defense authorization bill, as it came out of the 
committee, provides for the planning and designing related to 
construction of a facility here.
  This amendment strikes that language, and it reaffirms what we have 
said before. In fact, in last year's national defense authorization 
bill, we said there had to be a plan provided by the administration 
that outlines, in significant criteria and detail, what would be 
involved in bringing those detainees to the United States. I am opposed 
to that in the first place. I am opposed to that in the second place. I 
would add that plan that we keep looking for, it has yet to be, in any 
specificity, granted to us to see in Congress.
  Mr. President, I would ask my colleagues to allow, at the appropriate 
time, that this bill be made in order for consideration for a vote by 
the Senate as an amendment to this bill.
  Mr. McCAIN. There are a number of Members on both sides of the aisle 
who have had the honor of serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 
particularly some of the newer members have added enormously to the 
Armed Services Committee. There is also one member of the committee who 
I believe, in his many years of Active Duty, has served in Afghanistan 
as many as 33 times. He has had an up close and personal relationship 
with these brave interpreters who literally put their lives on the line 
in assisting people like Colonel Graham and all others as they were 
able to accomplish their mission, which they would not have been able 
to do if it had not been for the outstanding service and sacrifice of 
these interpreters.
  Senator Graham.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you. I compliment Senator Shaheen and all those 
involved in trying to get to yes. The people who had concerns about 
your amendment, I understand their concerns. You are able to find a way 
to accommodate those concerns. This is sort of how the legislative 
process works. You get to yes when you can. But why this is important 
to America and particularly to me--Senator Sullivan served some time in 
Afghanistan as a marine working in the Embassy dealing with detainee 
operations.
  I did about 140 days on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, mostly in 
Afghanistan, as a Reservist. I did my Reserve duty, 1 week, 2 weeks at 
a time, with Task Force 435 that was in charge of detainee operations 
at Bagram prison. That unit's job was to advise the commanders about 
who to put in Bagram, what requirements there were to hold somebody in 
Bagram prison under U.S. custody, and also to build up the rule of law, 
where the rule-of-law field forces would go out to different parts of 
Afghanistan and work with the police and the judiciary to try to build 
capacity.
  During my experience in Afghanistan, I learned something that is, 
quite frankly, overwhelming to this day, how brave some people in 
Afghanistan are to change their country. There was one interpreter--and 
I am certainly not going to use his name--who was there the entire time 
I did my Reserve duty. I retired last year. This man was invaluable. It 
is not just interpreting the language and repeating what we said. It is 
the context that he made over time to make sure the coalition forces 
could accomplish their mission. Of all the people we owe a debt to as 
Americans, it is these interpreters and those who have assisted our 
forces. They have come out of the shadows. They have taken a skill set 
we did not have, which is local knowledge, and they have applied that 
skill set to helping our efforts to protect America but, equally 
important, to protect their homeland, Afghanistan.
  All the letters from those who were in command can say it better than 
I can. I had a small glimpse as a military lawyer over about a 5-year 
period coming in and coming out, and all I can tell you is what I saw 
was amazing, and it moved me beyond measure. I got to meet their 
family. The interpreters had families. I got to know them. They have 
children. They have wives. All the ones I know were male, but I know 
there were females who were helping too. I can tell you, if there is 
any way for this body to pass Senator Shaheen's amendment, you would be 
doing our country and those who helped us under the most dire situation 
a great service.
  As to how the body works, I wish I could get everything I wanted. I 
have not been able to do that in life or in the Senate. I wanted to 
have a vote on the Ex-Im Bank because the Ex-Im Bank is not operating 
because we don't have a quorum. I asked for an amendment on this bill 
to change that to get us back in the game in terms of the Ex-Im Bank 
because it shut down. It was objected to because it is not germane. I 
understand that. I am disappointed, but I am not going to stop the 
whole bill because I didn't get what I want.
  There are other people who are offering amendments that are very 
important to them. Ex-Im Bank is very important to people of South 
Carolina, but there is a process. The Ex-Im Bank is about jobs that are 
important to Americans. This is about lives. This is about the here and 
now. This is not

[[Page S3703]]

about what might happen one day. Maybe if something happened, maybe we 
will do this or maybe we will do that. This is about people who have 
already stepped out. This is the here and now. There is nothing 
hypothetical about this debate. There are thousands of people in 
Afghanistan who have risked their lives to help us, and we are trying 
to get some of them out of Afghanistan to the safety of the United 
States, honoring their service to make sure other people in the future 
would also want to do the same.
  The one thing I tell my colleagues, the war is not over. Since 2012, 
2011, the last time we had some of these debates, has it gotten better? 
The world is on fire right now. The threats to our country are at an 
alltime high, in my opinion. In 2012, ISIL didn't even exist. Today 
they are trying to penetrate the homeland. The Homeland Security 
Secretary said what keeps him up at night is homegrown terrorism.
  The enemy is actively involved in trying to get people on their side 
who live among us. All I can say is, the things that have changed over 
the last few years are all for the worse, not the better, and this 
amendment is literally life and death. I honest to God beg and plead 
with the Members of this body, if you can't get everything you want, 
please don't stop this. I did not get everything I want. This really 
matters.

  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Suppose this unanimous consent request is objected to by 
a Member. Would my colleague say the blood of these interpreters who 
will be killed and their families murdered is on their hands? Would my 
friend say that just because they didn't get their amendment--by the 
way, I offered Senator Lee the chance to bring up his amendment on the 
issue of women in the Selective Service, and he turned that down. He 
said he wanted to take up his other amendment first.
  Let the record be clear that I immediately approached him and asked: 
When do you want to take up the amendment on Selective Service? He 
said: That is not my priority. My priority is this one here, which 
apparently he will object to.
  If we don't do this and those people are killed by the Taliban 
because they have to stay in Afghanistan--the Senator from South 
Carolina would agree they are the No. 1 target--wouldn't you say that 
those who objected to their having freedom in the United States of 
America have blood on their hands?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the first thing I would say is I blame the 
Taliban. They are the ones who are doing the killing. What I would say 
to Senators is, where you can help people who make our country safer, 
you should. All of us should try to find a way to get to yes at least 
sometimes if you can't do it all the time.
  I can tell the Members of this body that I have been to Iraq and 
Afghanistan 37 times--probably 20 times in Afghanistan. I spent close 
to 100 days on the ground in Afghanistan. I have seen in person what 
they do. They get outside the wire, make the mission possible, risk 
their lives, and Senator Shaheen has been able to navigate a very 
thorny issue and get a solution that is not 100 percent of what she 
wanted. She had to give up thousands of visas just to find a way to 
move forward.
  All I can say is that this really is a big deal. People's lives are 
at stake. This is not a hypothetical issue. All I can say is that I 
hope we can find it among ourselves to get to yes on this and what 
Senator Moran is trying to do. If we can't, we can't, but let me tell 
you this: Senator Lee objected to my Ex-Im Bank amendment in committee. 
He had every right to do so. It wasn't germane. It is very important to 
me. We are losing thousands of jobs. South Carolina is losing hundreds 
of jobs because the Bank shut down. I will still fight to get the Ex-Im 
Bank operating, but what I will not do to help the people of South 
Carolina is to put the lives of those in Afghanistan at risk. I don't 
think I am helping the people in South Carolina by making it harder for 
us to fight and win a war we can't afford to lose. I can't live with 
myself knowing what is coming their way.
  This is not a matter of ``what if'' to me. I have been there, I have 
seen it, and people are literally going to die. My amendment is 
important to me, and it is important to the economy of South Carolina 
and the Nation. I did not get my way, but I am not going to stand in 
the way of people being able to avoid being killed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, will my colleague from South Carolina 
yield for a question?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would be glad to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, the Senator from South Carolina talked 
about the fight against ISIL and how that is spreading across the 
Middle East. What kind of message does it send to the Taliban, ISIL, 
and other terrorist groups, should they hear that we are defeating this 
program that was designed to help those people who helped us?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, that is a great question. They are called 
night letters. Let me tell you how this works. I was in Kandahar with 
the rule of law field forces, and we were trying to build up the 
capacity of their judges in Kandahar. The judges were being killed in 
large measure, so it was pretty hard to find anybody who wanted to be a 
judge.
  We hardened the site, and we put some American troops, along with 
Afghan soldiers, to try to get a judiciary up and running in a really 
hot spot. We had a couple of police stations that were being overrun, 
and we tried to get people to go back to the police stations.
  The night letter was delivered to some of the leaders who were buying 
into what we were doing. I don't speak Pashto, but these night letters 
were from the Taliban saying: We are watching. The Americans will leave 
you. They will leave you, and we will remember you.
  I know what the night letter looks like because I saw one, but here 
is the difference--I never got one. Imagine what it would be like if 
you woke up tomorrow and the enemy of your country, which is trying to 
take your country down, is telling you and your family: We are watching 
you. We are coming after you. You are hiding behind the Great Satan, 
and the Great Satan will abandon you.
  I can tell you what it would do. It would make those letters real, 
and they will take this failure to help people who helped us and make 
it really hard in the future for us to defend our Nation.
  The night letters are going to increase. We had to sit down with 
these people and say: No, we are not going to abandon you.
  It is funny the Senator from New Hampshire mentioned that. I have a 
resolution that Senator Reed has agreed to which urges the President, 
if he chooses, to keep troops at 9,800 based on conditions. If he felt 
that was the right thing, we would all support him and let the next 
President find out if we need to go down in size. I am all for leaving. 
I just want to make sure the conditions are right to leave, and I don't 
think it is right to go from 9,800 to 5,500.
  All I can say to Senator Shaheen is that these night letters will be 
larger in number, and the people who get the letters are watching what 
we are doing.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
amendments be in order to be offered: Shaheen No. 4604 and Moran No. 
4068; I further ask there be 5 minutes equally divided between the 
managers or their designees and that the Senate then proceed to vote in 
relation to the amendments in the order listed with no second-degree 
amendments to these amendments in order prior to the votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I sat here and 
I heard some fairly hyperbolic arguments--arguments suggesting somehow 
that anyone who has other amendments they would like to have considered 
are somehow unpatriotic or unsympathetic if they don't allow these 
amendments to go through.
  The fact is, I have no problem with either of these amendments. I 
will gladly not only allow a vote on them, but I will also vote for the 
amendment from Senator Shaheen and the amendment from Senator Moran. I 
support

[[Page S3704]]

both of them, but I would like a vote on my amendment as well. This is 
an issue I have worked on for 5 years. This issue arose 5 years ago 
when a provision was slipped into the NDAA that we passed that year 
that I think raises significant concerns.
  I have worked with my colleague, the senior Senator from California, 
and Senators on both sides of the aisle, and put together a proposal to 
deal with that language. We put that in and had a vote on it in 2012, 
and 67 Members of this body voted for it, including some of the people 
who have spoken in the last few minutes. This is an issue that became a 
part of our law because of the NDAA 5 years ago. It is appropriate to 
bring this up now.
  Moments ago, the Senator from South Carolina made reference to an 
objection I made to an amendment of his within the Senate Armed 
Services Committee on which he and I serve. It is true that I made an 
objection because in the committee we have some jurisdictional rules. 
There are reasons why certain amendments aren't jurisdictionally proper 
within the committee. There was a reason I didn't bring up the 
amendment that I wanted to vote on within the committee because of a 
jurisdictional issue. I was told last year and this year that if this 
is an amendment you want to bring up, the appropriate time to do so is 
on the floor and not in committee. The reason I did that is that there 
are jurisdictional issues present within the committee.
  Again, I don't have a problem with the Shaheen or Moran amendments. I 
will support both of them. All I am asking for is to give me a vote on 
my amendment as well.
  Therefore, I ask that the unanimous consent be modified to include my 
amendment--amendment No. 4448.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Arizona so modify his 
request?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, No. 1, I will object, and let me tell you 
why. The last time we had a hearing about the issue of whether or not 
an American citizen can be held as an enemy combatant if they 
collaborate with Al Qaeda was 2012. Since 2012, things have changed all 
for the worse.
  To my friend from Utah, your amendment should be in the Judiciary 
Committee. That is where primary jurisdiction exists. I am chairman of 
the Crime, Terrorism Subcommittee. I promise that we will have a 
hearing about your idea that never made it in the NDAA, and we will see 
what has changed from 2012 till now. I think that is much better than 
having a debate on the floor of the Senate about something this 
important that will last 30 minutes or an hour.
  I would argue to the American people that the rise of ISIL has 
changed the game. If you read their literature, they are talking about 
how it is easier to penetrate America than it is to get somebody to 
come here. When you listen to the FBI and Homeland Security director, 
their No. 1 fear is homegrown terrorism.
  Here is my view: We will debate the substance of this later. I think 
the best thing we can do is pass these two amendments. The Ex-Im Bank 
was brought up by Senator Schumer, and Senator Shelby objected. He has 
every right to do so. Senator Lee came on the floor and talked about 
what a bad idea the Bank is, and he has every right to do so.
  In order to allow these two people to go forward, the Senator has to 
get a vote on his amendment. That is what this is all about. I didn't 
get my amendment. I wish that we could have had a vote on the Ex-Im 
Bank reauthorization. It really does matter to me. I didn't get that.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, if I could finish my thought, what I would 
suggest to Senator Lee is that the prudent thing for us to do is to 
have another hearing because the last one we had was in 2012. Listen to 
the FBI Director and Homeland Security Secretary and see why they feel 
so strongly about homegrown terrorism and see if we can find a way to 
move forward. But what the Senator from Utah and others have said--
there is not one American being held as an enemy combatant today. There 
are thousands of people who have helped us in Afghanistan who will be 
killed if we don't do something about it.
  The Senator from Utah and I will never agree on this issue, and I 
respect my friend greatly. I believe we are fighting a war, not a 
crime. I will never agree that because you are an American citizen, you 
can collaborate with the enemy and work actively with Al Qaeda and ISIL 
to attack your homeland and not be held under the law of war, which we 
have been doing for decades in other wars.
  I do believe in due process. As the law is written today, if our 
military or intelligence community picks up someone they believe is 
collaborating with ISIL or Al Qaeda, someone covered as an enemy 
combatant, they can be held, but they can be held only if a Federal 
judge allows the continued holding. You do get a hearing under the 
habeas corpus statute. The government has to prove you are, in fact, an 
enemy combatant.
  The last time we had this debate, it was suggested this was a 
slippery slope. What prevents you from being held as an enemy combatant 
if you went to a tea party rally? That was pretty offensive to me then, 
and it is really offensive to me now. The idea that somehow American 
soil is not part of the battlefield blows me away.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will in a moment.
  Let me make this real to you. We will have a big debate. I would love 
to have a hearing.
  This guy pictured here is Anwar al-Awlaki. He is dead, thank God. He 
was an American citizen and head of Al Qaeda in Yemen. President Obama 
put him on the kill list, and we killed him. That is good. Well done, 
Mr. President.
  If you are an American citizen and you go to Yemen and join Al Qaeda, 
I hope you get killed too. If we capture you, you will have your day in 
court to argue that you are not part of Al Qaeda, that we have it all 
wrong, and the government has to prove that you in fact are. But if the 
government can make that argument, the last thing I want somebody like 
this to hear is ``Hey, you have a right to remain silent.'' I don't 
want these people to remain silent; I want to hold them as enemy 
combatants and gather intelligence. I don't want to torture them. I 
don't want to beat them up. But I don't want to put them in Federal 
court and act like it is not part of the war. I don't want to 
criminalize the war; I want to make sure you have due process 
consistent with being at war.

  What Senator Lee and others are suggesting is that if this guy made 
it to America, came back to his homeland, and we shot him on the steps 
of the Capitol and he survived, we would have to read him his Miranda 
rights and we couldn't hold him to find out under military 
interrogation what he knows about this attack and future attacks. So 
what you do when you go down this road is you stop the ability to 
gather intelligence at a time we need more information, not less.
  I am not going to belabor this point any more. As you can tell, I 
strongly disapprove of having this debate now without another hearing, 
going down this road, because so much has changed. And I hope you 
respect where I am coming from. I respect your passion. I hope you 
respect my passion on this.
  Here is the point: I didn't get all I want, and I am not going to 
stop the process for others who have done a good thing. Here is what 
you are going to do because you are worried about something that is not 
real at this moment because nobody is in custody. You are objecting to 
finding a solution for something that is real for the moment.
  Senator Moran, what you are worried about is real.
  So all I am asking is that before we can get to yes, let's get to 
yes, and if you can't get everything you want because somebody is 
passionate on the other side, don't stop everybody else from getting 
what they want. That, to me, just makes a stronger country, a better 
Senate.
  As you know, I respect you, but I am never going to agree with you, 
ever, because I have been a military lawyer for 33 years. What you are 
saying makes

[[Page S3705]]

no sense to me. I am sure you are sincere about it. I think it weakens 
the ability to defend this Nation at a time when we need all the 
defenses we can get.
  I am not suggesting that you would be rounded up by your government, 
thrown in jail, accused of being an Al Qaeda or ISIL member, and nobody 
ever hears from you again and you never get a chance to speak. That is 
not the law, and it has never been the law.
  I plead with the Senator, please, please, let's take this issue to 
the Judiciary Committee where it belongs. Let's have a hearing, mark up 
the bill in Judiciary, and then do whatever you want to do. Don't stop 
these two amendments. That is all I am asking.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, let me also mention a couple of facts. As 
of 10 o'clock this morning, there were 537 amendments that had been 
filed--537 amendments--which is always the case with the Defense 
authorization bill. I am sure that every Member who filed those 
amendments wanted a vote and a debate on every single one of them, as 
is their right, but the fact is that we can't do that for a whole 
variety of reasons, including objections, et cetera. So if every 
Senator blocked every vote because his or her amendment is not being 
considered, obviously we would never do anything, which is why we have 
done so little here on this bill.
  Now we are talking about the lives of men who have put it on the line 
for the men and women who are serving. Don't we have some sense of 
perspective and priority here? People are going to die, I tell the 
Senator from Utah. They are going to die if we don't pass this 
amendment and take them out of harm's way. Don't you understand the 
gravity of that? Can't you understand that your issue on extended 
detaining is an important one, but don't you understand these people's 
lives are in danger as we speak? They have been marked for death. They 
have been marked for death. Why do you think General Petraeus and 
General Nicholson and Ryan Crocker and all our most respected military 
leaders say with great urgency--they say with urgency that we have to 
do this because they are going to die. They are going to be killed. 
Doesn't that somehow appeal to your sense of compassion for these 
people?
  Mr. LEE. If the Senator will yield, I will answer----
  Mr. McCAIN. Let me finish.
  Don't you understand what is at stake here? Do you respect General 
Petraeus, General Nicholson, and General McChrystal? Every one of them 
has written to us and said that these people's lives are in danger and 
that this is a moral issue.
  So you are going to object because your amendment is being blocked, 
as so many amendments are blocked. Many, many amendments are blocked. 
If that is good or bad, I don't know, but people object.
  Now we are talking about a compelling humanitarian issue that is far 
more important than humanitarian because we abandon these people, and 
you can't expect people in future conflicts or in these conflicts we 
are in to cooperate and help the United States of America if we are 
going to abandon them to a cruel and terrible death.
  This is a serious issue. This is not something that we like to 
maneuver around what the steering committee wants and how we are going 
to do all these kinds of things we get mired down in, and we will have 
the Heritage Foundation write a letter or something like that. This is 
a matter of life and death, and that issue and challenge is immediate.
  So I appeal to the Senator from Utah's humanity, for his compassion, 
for his ability to save lives here, and let this go through, as the 
most respected military and diplomatic leaders in the world have urged 
us to do. I appeal to the life-or-death situation that will entail a 
lot of deaths if you block this legislation.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I object to the modification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection to the modification is heard.
  Is there objection to the original request?
  Mr. LEE. I object to the original request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I have been asked by a couple of my 
colleagues why it is that I couldn't just have the good sense to let 
their amendments go through. I say let's do it. Let's have it right 
now. I support the amendment. Let's vote on it right now. Let's vote on 
Senator Moran's amendment right now, and let's vote on mine right now.
  Now the comparison has been made by the Senator from South Carolina 
that because he didn't get his vote because someone objected this 
morning to his amendment dealing with the Export-Import Bank, that I 
should also have my amendment blocked.
  It is important to realize that the Export-Import Bank was not 
created by a previous iteration of the National Defense Authorization 
Act. The provision I am objecting to here and the provision I am trying 
to address here was, in fact, created by a previous iteration of the 
National Defense Authorization Act. It was passed in 2011 with, I 
believe, far too little consideration, without the American people 
being aware of what they were doing, and it remains on the books to 
this day.
  The next argument made by my friend from South Carolina is an 
interesting one, which is that this needs more of an airing, needs more 
of a hearing. He has promised me now a hearing on the Judiciary 
Committee which he chairs. As much as I appreciate that gesture, that 
is not enough.
  Let me replay a couple of things. First of all, I have been working 
on this for 5 years. I got a vote on it 4 years ago, and 67 Senators 
voted for it. It was removed in a conference committee. Someone said 
there was confusion as to why it was removed in a conference committee; 
regardless, it was removed. I have been trying ever since then, in 
subsequent iterations of the Defense authorization act, to get another 
vote on it.
  I served on the Armed Services Committee, and I was told by the 
chairman, my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Arizona 
last year--I told him I wanted to bring it up in committee. He said: 
You can't bring it up in committee because there is a jurisdictional 
issue with the Judiciary Committee. That is better dealt with on the 
floor.
  I said: OK. I will deal with it on the floor.
  We got to the floor. I was blocked from operating on the floor. It 
didn't happen.
  So this year I was told: You can't bring it up in committee. There is 
a jurisdiction issue. You are best served waiting for the floor for 
that.
  I said: OK. I will wait for the floor.
  I brought it up again this year. Now I have been told by the chairman 
of the Armed Services Committee, the senior Senator from Arizona, that 
we will deal with it next year. I have been told by the Senator from 
South Carolina that he will deal with it at some unknown point in the 
future in a hearing--not markup, just a hearing--in a subcommittee of 
the Judiciary Committee which he chairs.
  So we are talking about an issue now that was brought up 5 years ago, 
and I am being told again and again to wait, to wait, to wait more. 
This is an issue that got the vote of 67 Members of our body 4 years 
ago. This is an issue that was brought about by a previous iteration of 
the National Defense Authorization Act. This is the appropriate vehicle 
in which to address this.
  This is not a frivolity. This is not just some nicety. This is not 
some parochial interest. This is a basic human rights interest. This is 
an interest that relates to some of the most fundamental protections in 
the U.S. Constitution.
  When you say that you want to lock up American citizens detained on 
U.S. soil without charge, without trial, without access to a jury, 
indefinitely, for an unlimited period of time, you are implicating at a 
minimum the Fourth, the Fifth and the Sixth and Eighth Amendments to 
the Constitution. These are very significant.
  My friend from South Carolina says we just need to take a deep breath 
and deal with this another day. Why does the status quo--the status quo 
which is insulting to the history, the traditions, the text, the 
context of the U.S. Constitution--why should that be the status quo? 
Why should we wait to deal with this? Why should the status quo be one 
that is insulting to the American people, one that is insulting to the

[[Page S3706]]

descendents of those Japanese Americans who were interned in World War 
II indefinitely without charge, without access to trial, without access 
to the jury system, without access to their fundamental rights under 
the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments under the Constitution, 
among others? Why should that status quo prevail?
  Why, moreover, should someone who is concerned about these issues--
these fundamental human rights issues, these fundamental constitutional 
rights issues--why should someone who is concerned about those be 
maligned and accused of not caring about individuals who would be 
harmed by the non-passage of another amendment? Why should that person 
be blamed when that person--I--is willing to allow a vote on the 
Shaheen amendment, on the Moran amendment, as long as they give me a 
vote on my amendment--an amendment that was allowed a vote 4 years ago, 
an amendment that received 67 votes--a veto-proof supermajority--only 4 
years ago?
  So, having been told again and again n, wait until next year, wait 
until next year, wait until the next committee process, wait until the 
next floor process, after a while, one begins to discern a pattern. 
That is a pattern that I am discerning.
  There is another pattern that I discern, which is a pattern in which 
when you allow government to exercise a certain power, even if it might 
not being exercised at the moment, eventually it will. That is why we 
put precautionary language within our laws. That is why we have rights 
in our laws. What are rights, after all, but statements of law that 
restrict action by the government?
  As Madison noted in Federalist 51, the government is a reflection of 
human nature. To understand government, you have to understand human 
nature. If men were angels, we would have no need of a government. And 
if government could be administered by angels, we would have no need 
for these external constraints on government, on its ability to 
exercise power. But we have learned through sad experience that when 
human beings get power and when they get excessive power, sometimes 
they abuse that power, so we have to constrain it. And it is important 
that we decide that we are going to constrain it before the moment 
arrives, lest we see another Korematsu moment, lest we see the 
internment of more American citizens without charge, without trial, on 
an indefinite basis, on the basis of mere accusations--accusations 
unproven, accusations untested by a jury.
  The whole reason for having a Constitution rests on this 
understanding. This fundamental understanding is that when government 
power grows, when it expands, it does so at the expense of individual 
freedom, and it sometimes does so at great risk to the human soul, at 
great risk to the ability of an individual to remain free.
  I am all in favor of the Shaheen amendment. I am all in favor of the 
Moran amendment. Let's have a vote on those two amendments and on the 
amendment that I have proposed, an amendment that is limited and an 
amendment, I should note here, that would not foreclose the ability of 
this body down the road to identify the changed circumstances of the 
sort that some of my colleagues have referred to. It simply says that 
if the government is going to do this, there has to be a plain 
statement, a clear statement; that it has to do so expressly; that 
Congress must expressly authorize this kind of action either in a 
declaration of war or an authorization for the use of military force. I 
don't think that is too much to ask, especially given the types of 
constitutional protections we are dealing with.
  If, in fact, we are going to call the American homeland--if, in fact, 
we are going to call the territorial jurisdiction of the United States 
of America part of the battlefield, ought we not to have a declaration 
of war, an authorization for use of military force that identifies it 
as such? I mean, after all, the precedents that we are talking about, 
the precedents upon which this theory is based are premised on this 
idea that you have enemy combatants who become part of an enemy's 
fighting force, as was the case of Ex parte Quirin, where you had 
American citizens going over to Germany, putting on a German uniform, 
and fighting for the Germans. That was part of that war. They were 
enemy combatants on the battlefield.

  There was Ex parte Milligan, where you had Confederate rebel soldiers 
who were enemy combatants on the battlefield fighting against the 
United States. So if we are willing to do that, we need a declaration 
of war. We need an authorization for the use of military force that 
states so expressly. That is the sole purpose of my amendment. I don't 
think that is unreasonable. In fact, I think that is necessary.
  So I would like to get this done. I would like to get this done. We 
can get this done today. Let's have votes on all three amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I guess, finally, I woke up in the middle 
of the night last night thinking about this issue. It made me think of 
a long time ago when I saw a lot of brave Americans die, some of them 
in aerial combat. Several times I thought that perhaps I could have 
prevented their deaths by being a better airman or taking certain 
actions. It bothers me to this day.
  I can't imagine how it must bother someone who is literally signing 
the death warrants of some people who in their innocence decided they 
would help the United States of America. I could not bear that burden. 
I believe that what we are doing here by blocking this amendment that 
allow would these wonderful people, as described by all of our leaders, 
to leave a place where death is almost certain--at least in the case of 
some of them--because of some exercise that would have no immediate 
effect, is that we are blocking this ability to save lives. I do not 
understand.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROUNDS. 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. ROUNDS. Mr. President, as the Senate continues to consider the 
National Defense Authorization Act, the NDAA, I rise today to discuss 
an amendment in support of my constituents who are military retirees, 
as well as military retirees in many other States.
  My amendment would change a provision being proposed in this bill 
that requires military retirees and their families who don't have easy 
access to a military treatment facility, such as on a base, to unfairly 
pay higher copays for their prescription medications. TRICARE provides 
health care services for our servicemembers, our military retirees, and 
their families.
  Using TRICARE, military retirees can get free prescription drugs at a 
military treatment facility. In other words, our military retirees who 
live close to a base have no copays for their prescription drugs. 
However, if they draw these prescriptions from a retail pharmacy or 
through the TRICARE-approved mail order system, they are required to 
make a copayment.
  My amendment deals with a provision in today's bill that directs the 
Department of Defense, or DOD, to increase these copayments that 
military retirees obtain from a retail pharmacy or through mail order 
rather from a military treatment facility. The provision will require 
those military retirees who live far away from a base, without easy 
access to a military treatment facility, to get their prescriptions and 
to pay more for their use of retail pharmacies and mail order.
  Why would anybody seek to make it more expensive for our military 
retirees to receive a benefit they have been promised just because they 
live far away from a military treatment facility? The answer is simple. 
It is sequestration. We are making cuts to an existing budget. This 
provision was inserted as a cost-savings measure, one that tries to 
balance and measure out the costs based upon or demanded by 
sequestration.
  But we are doing it on the backs of military retirees. It is being 
done to try to make some tough budget decisions. But this arbitrary 
cost-cutting measure is estimated to cost our military retiree families 
in rural areas--

[[Page S3707]]

and I emphasize ``in rural areas''--$2 billion over the next 10 years. 
I don't think it is fair for us to make those who live in rural areas--
rural years like South Dakota--to pay a higher copay because of where 
they live.
  We have made promises to these men and whom who made incredible 
sacrifices to protect our country that they would be able to have 
adequate health insurance coverage, including access to prescription 
drugs and medicines. It is not fair to make them bear a $2 billion cost 
for prescription drugs simply because of where they live. My amendment 
would stipulate that if a military retiree lives more than 40 miles 
from a military treatment facility, they would not be saddled with this 
additional copay.
  Further, my amendment would require an assessment by the Department 
of Defense of the added costs that would be borne by these military 
retirees and their families as a result of increased TRICARE 
prescription drug copays. This will enable Congress to make reasonable 
future decisions with regard to increased TRICARE prescription drug 
copayments that may have a disproportionate impact on those living 
distant from military treatment facilities.
  I appreciate the opportunity to discuss my amendment, which would 
rectify a serious effect on military retirees and their families.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                             Foreign Policy

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, like many people in this body, I was 
home last week in Wyoming honoring the sacrifice of America's veterans. 
Every day we see evidence of just how much America relies on our men 
and women in uniform to keep us safe, to keep us free, to fight for our 
freedoms, to fight for our safety. Every day we get fresh reminders 
that the world continues to be a very dangerous place.
  So to me it is disturbing that the Democrats in Washington have done 
so much to slow down our efforts to provide for America's troops--
troops we need for our national defense. The National Defense 
Authorization Act that we are debating here sets important policies and 
priorities that have a great effect on our national security.
  A strong American military is absolutely essential--essential as we 
need to address the world's dangers that we face overseas before they 
become direct threats here at home.
  So when I consider legislation like this, I try to keep one thing in 
mind: If we want to make America safe and secure, then we need to 
provide the greatest possible security for our country while 
maintaining the greatest possible freedom for the American people and 
also at the same time improving America's standing in the world.
  So when I look back over the past 7 years, I have to ask the Obama 
administration--ask of the Obama administration and ask all Americans 
and anyone listening in today--how the Obama administration's foreign 
policies have met the goals of greatest possible security, greatest 
possible freedom, and improving our standing in the world.
  I just think that in far too many cases, in too many parts of the 
world, the only honest conclusion is that the policies of the Obama 
administration have actually failed. Now, I am not the only one that 
thinks so. I found it very interesting when you take a look at what 
former President Jimmy Carter has to say when he was asked about this. 
He said this about President Obama: ``I can't think of many nations in 
the world where we [the United States] have a better relationship now 
than we did when he [President Obama], took over.''
  He went on to say that the United States' influence, prestige, and 
respect--think about this: influence, prestige and respect--in the 
world is probably lower now than it was 6 or 7 years ago. This is a 
former President of the United States, a Democratic President of the 
United States, Jimmy Carter.
  So let's look at some examples. It has been more than 5 years since 
the start of the uprisings in Syria. In August of 2011, President Obama 
responded by calling on Bashar Assad to step aside. A few months later, 
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that it was only ``a matter of 
time before the Assad regime would fail.'' Well, that was more than 4 
years ago. Assad is still there. ``A matter of time,'' she said.
  The Obama administration did not back up its words, and any 
meaningful support for the moderate opposition in Syria was not there. 
They did nothing. The President did nothing to enforce the so-called 
redline that he drew on Assad's use of chemical weapons against his 
people. Assad used the chemical weapons, and the President of the 
United States did nothing.
  The administration's weak response in Syria essentially gave a green 
light for Assad to continue and a green light for Russia to come in and 
pump up and protect Assad. So I find it interesting when you take a 
look at what the President of the United States has done. If you go to 
the Washington Post for Tuesday, June 7, this was the headline:

       Empty words, empty stomachs.
       Syrian children continue to face starvation as another 
     Obama administration promise falls by the wayside.

  That is what we see with Barack Obama, another Obama administration 
promise falling by the wayside. Thousands and thousands and hundreds of 
thousands killed. The President's redline became a green light. So the 
invitation came for Russia to come in. They have done that.
  Well, what else has Russia done over the past 7 years? Remember how 
the Obama administration launched its so-called Russian reset? 
President Obama was so intent on resetting the U.S. relations with the 
Kremlin that he showed a complete lack of resolve. He gave Russia one 
concession after another in the new START treaty. That was in 2010. He 
had only become President in 2009. In 2010, there was one concession 
after another.
  President Obama showed Vladimir Putin that the American President, 
Barack Obama, could easily be pushed around. Under this treaty, America 
is cutting our nuclear arsenal while Russia is expanding theirs. It was 
allowed by the treaty. This is the President's ``best he could do.'' 
Russia responded to the reset. We remember Hillary Clinton there 
pressing the reset button. Russia responded to the reset of relations 
by sending troops into Ukraine, by annexing Crimea. Russia moved.
  President Obama shows weakness, and Russia moves. Yes, Vladimir Putin 
is a thug. When President Obama shows weakness, Putin does the things 
that thugs do. But that is the Obama administration for you. The 
administration's policy on Russia has not provided the greatest 
possible security for America--not at all.
  But let's look at Iran. Last week President Obama gave a very 
political speech at the graduation ceremony at the U.S. Air Force 
Academy in Colorado Springs.
  He criticized Republicans for questioning the treaties he negotiates. 
To me, it seems more like capitulates rather than negotiates. While 
President Obama negotiated a major treaty with Iran over their illicit 
nuclear weapons program, he said it was this or war. He thought the 
treaty was so great he didn't want the Senate to have a chance to 
review it. That was it, his way or no.
  In his State of the Union Address in January, he said that because of 
the nuclear deal with Iran, ``the world has avoided another war.'' 
These are President Obama's words.
  This is complete fiction, complete fiction. The choice was never 
between his deal and another war. It was a choice between a bad deal 
and a better deal, and President Obama chose a bad deal.
  As they say in the military, if you want it bad enough, you get it 
bad. And that is what we got, a lesson President Obama apparently never 
learned.
  We have learned from an interview with one of the President's top 
advisers that this was something the administration knew all along. 
This adviser, Ben Rhodes, bragged about creating an echo chamber to 
help deceive--intentionally designed to deceive the American people 
about the agreement.
  Let's go back. Before the nuclear deal, there was actually an 
international ban on Iran testing ballistic missile technology. A ban 
was in place. What is happening today? Well, Iran is right back to 
doing the tests.
  I remember the administration promising the inspectors would get 
access to

[[Page S3708]]

Iran's nuclear facilities. They said anywhere, anytime, 24/7. That is 
what Ben Rhodes said. It turns out it is more like 24 days, not 24/7. 
That is the kind of notice that now is needed prior to access.
  So how is it working for Iran? Well, the Iranian economy is 
benefiting from access to $100 billion because the Obama administration 
gave them sanctions relief. What are they going to do with the money--
build roads, build hospitals, help educate the young? Don't count on it 
because even the President's National Security Advisor admits some of 
this money is going to be used by Iran to keep supporting terrorist 
groups. We see it. We know it--Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis in 
Yemen.
  President Obama wanted to get a deal with Iran so badly that he got a 
very bad deal, a bad deal--not for him--for the American people, for 
our country. The President and his foreign policy team were willing to 
say anything to sell this deal to the American people. The 
administration's policy in Iran has not provided the greatest possible 
security for America.
  I could go on and on talking about more places around the world. 
Members of this body are fully aware. The American people are fully 
aware of the failures of this administration. There are so many places 
where America does not have a better relationship now than we did when 
President Obama came into office--just like Jimmy Carter said: ``I 
can't think of many nations in the world where we have a better 
relationship now than when [President Obama] took over.''
  So President Obama is going to spend the rest of his time in office 
trying to create an echo chamber. He will try to convince people around 
the world that his foreign policy has been a success, but The Economist 
magazine recently noted America, under President Obama, has been a 
foreign policy--in their words--``pushover.''
  As the Senate considers this vital national security legislation, the 
National Defense Authorization Act, I think it is important that we 
honestly evaluate what the President's record really is, and today the 
world is less safe, less secure, and less stable than it was 7 years 
ago. The President and all the people who have been a part of his 
foreign policy team over the years will say whatever it takes to try to 
hide and disguise the facts. It is time to block out the echo chamber. 
It is time to ignore the spin. We need to make sure we are providing 
the greatest possible security for America while maintaining the 
greatest possible freedom for the American people and improving 
America's standing in the world. That is our responsibility as a 
legislative body.
  For decades upon decades, America has been the most powerful and 
respected Nation on the face of the Earth. Under President Obama, 
American power has declined and respect around the world has 
evaporated.
  President Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009. It was 
completely undeserved, and it deserves to be removed from him if 
something like this could actually be done. Unfortunately, it is not 
possible to revoke a Nobel Peace Prize. In this case it should be. That 
prize remains undeserved.
  American men and women in uniform deserve better than what they have 
gotten from their Commander in Chief. It is now up to Congress to make 
sure they receive the support, the equipment, and the technology they 
need to protect our country and our citizens.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, the Federal Government's No. 1 
responsibility is to protect the American people. As the Obama 
administration approaches its final months, the American people still 
do not feel, with any degree of confidence, that Washington is taking 
the proper steps to carry out that responsibility. The Islamic State 
terror group has repeatedly encouraged sympathizers in the West to 
launch domestic attacks. In the group's self-declared caliphate in 
Syria and Iraq, it continues to carry out atrocities on a daily basis.
  ISIS has no intention of letting up, and the President's strategy of 
scattered attacks is doing little to slow the terror groups' strength. 
A group President Obama once dubbed the JV team has become a clear and 
serious threat during his watch.
  That is just one of the many failures during this administration's 
foreign policy which is rooted in wishful thinking rather than grounded 
in reality. The idea that we can wish away the Nation's threats that 
our Nation faces by passively withdrawing from the international stage 
is a dangerous approach. It is this mentality that the President and 
his aides used to justify not calling jihadi attacks what they are, 
radical Islamic terrorism. The President has convinced himself that 
radical Islamic terrorism will not be a threat if we just call it 
something else. Clearly, this is not true.
  It is the same mindset that thinks closing Gitmo and moving dangerous 
terrorists to U.S. soil is the right thing to do, and it is how we 
ended up with a deal that does nothing to prevent Iran from going 
nuclear but instead emboldens it to belligerently threaten the United 
States, our allies like Israel, and its neighboring Arab States.
  The regime in Tehran acts as if it is virtually untouchable as a 
result of the Obama administration's agreement. Iran has no intentions 
of being a responsible, peaceful player in the international community. 
Even before the deal's implementation, Iran shamelessly violated U.N. 
Security Council mandates. Now, free from sanctions, the Iranians are 
flush with resources to build an arsenal to fund terror across the 
region. None of this seems to matter to the White House, which was bent 
on making this deal the cornerstone of its foreign policy.
  The administration was so determined to sell this deal that it 
engaged in a propaganda campaign, enlisting outside groups to create an 
``echo chamber'' and feeding material to a press corps that White House 
staffers said ``knew nothing'' about diplomacy. The administration even 
took extreme steps to keep the uncomfortable truths from the American 
people by removing a damaging exchange about whether officials lied 
about secret talks with Iran in 2012.
  All of this just adds to the perception that the Obama administration 
was willing to go to any length to get this deal done, no matter how 
bad it is for our national security.
  Senate Republicans have tried to correct this, of course. We wanted 
to stop this ill-advised Iran deal, but the minority leader forced his 
caucus to protect the President's legacy.
  We have taken efforts to force the President to present a coherent 
plan to defeat ISIS abroad and to protect Americans here at home. That 
plan is still nonexistent.
  We have inserted language into law after law to prevent the closure 
of Gitmo. In fact, the President is once again threatening to veto the 
bill we are currently considering, in part, due to the language that 
prevents closure of the facility.
  We shouldn't be moving dangerous terrorists out of Gitmo. If 
anything, we should be moving more terrorists into Gitmo. The state-of-
the-art facility is more than serving its purpose for detaining the 
worst of the worst, obtaining valuable intelligence from them, and 
keeping these terrorists who are bent on destroying America from 
returning to the battlefield.
  A report from the Washington Post yesterday indicates that the Obama 
administration has evidence that about a dozen detainees released from 
Gitmo have launched attacks against the United States or allied forces 
in Afghanistan that have resulted in American deaths.
  As the threat posed by ISIS grows, Gitmo remains the only option to 
house these terrorists. Any facility on U.S. soil is not an option. It 
never was with Al Qaeda terrorists, nor can it be with ISIS terrorists.
  The President has failed to understand the gravity these terrorists 
pose to our homeland. Radical Islamic terrorists around the globe are 
pledging allegiance to the group and, as we have seen in Paris, 
Brussels, and San Bernardino, they are committed to and capable of 
hitting Westerners at home.
  The President has never presented a strategy to Congress for 
eliminating ISIS, and our sporadic airstrikes have done little to stop 
the group from pressing forward and attempting to strengthen its global 
reach.
  While ISIS grows and the United States sits idly by, Iran, Russia, 
China, and North Korea have ramped up their belligerent actions, 
putting our security at risk around the world. This will

[[Page S3709]]

only continue to increase if we continue to chase the diplomacy to the 
point where it puts the safety of the American people at risk, to the 
point where any leverage the United States started with is gone, and to 
the point where we withdraw from conflicts with enemies because it is 
easier to allow someone else to fight the battle.
  We are trying to fix the problems created by the Obama 
administration's failures so we can restore the confidence of the 
American people that their government is working to protect them here 
and abroad. Passage of the bill before us this week is a good step in 
the right direction.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am not on the floor to interrupt any kind 
of debate relative to this bill, but given the fact we are at a 
stalemate situation and nobody is on the floor, I thought I would at 
least highlight a foreign policy speech I have been wanting to give. I 
plan to do it in significant detail on Monday, if the hours work out as 
I think they will.
  Let me just take this short amount of time to summarize some of what 
I have been thinking and that I think is something my colleagues and 
all of us ought to be thinking about in terms of our foreign policy. Of 
course, it is related to our national defense, and that is what we are 
debating today, supporting our military. It is unfortunate we are in 
the situation we are in, but nevertheless I wish to take a few minutes 
to discuss what the next President will be inheriting--whomever that 
President turns out to be, a Republican or Democrat and potentially, I 
guess I should say, an Independent, although I don't think that will 
happen.
  The next President is going to be faced with a bucket full of foreign 
policy issues that President is going to have to deal with. As I said, 
I hope to speak next week at some time in greater length about the 
challenges our President will face, but let me summarize a few key 
points that deserve further discussion among my colleagues, and, 
hopefully, by the Presidential candidates during the election campaign.
  It is clear to me, and I believe it is clear to my Senate colleagues, 
that the President has failed to clearly define America's global role 
and a coherent strategy to pursue that goal. It is equally clear that 
his vision of America's role has been woefully inadequate to respond to 
the growing crises throughout the world.
  Someone earlier here mentioned, and I had mentioned before, that the 
world is on fire. The Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, 
with 51 years of service in the intelligence world, has said he has 
never seen anything like this in his 51 years of service--the multitude 
of crises that exist around the world and that we are confronted with. 
As the world's leading Nation--the Nation that has provided freedom for 
hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people by taking the lead to 
fight terrorism, to fight the evil that exists in this world--it is 
important we understand America's decisions. The decisions made by 
America's leaders have enormous impact on events around the world.
  For nearly 8 years, we have been trying to read the President's 
foreign policy tea leaves to divine his purposes and methods of a 
foreign policy that, to me and to many, seems chaotic, ad hoc, and 
directionless. We don't know what the administration is trying to 
accomplish--whether we should or should not engage and at what cost it 
would be. These all remain mysteries--mysteries to us here in the 
Senate, where we have an obligation to advise and consent on foreign 
policy, and to the American people, who continue to ask us: What is 
going on here? What is America's role? What are we doing? What should 
we be doing? What is the debate?
  The task is made even more daunting by the crisis-ridden world we now 
face. The next President will face foreign policy challenges from 
across the globe, but three stand out that I would especially like to 
touch on this evening and that I think are especially dangerous. Those 
three are the Middle East, Europe, and Russia.
  Let's look at the Middle East. The region is disintegrating. We are 
now in the midst of the most profound and dangerous redefinition of the 
region since the end of the Ottoman Empire in 1917. Borders, regimes, 
stability, and alliances are all being swept away with no clear 
successors.
  In the center of all of it is ISIS--the most lethal, best funded, 
dangerous terrorist organization in history--created and metastasized 
in a vacuum largely, unfortunately, of our own making.
  At the same time, the civil war in Syria is continuing into its sixth 
year. The war has created nearly 300,000 dead, with millions of 
refugees and internally displaced persons and with no end in sight.
  Iran continues its long history of destabilizing, hostile activities 
in the region, now growing its disruptive capacity in the wake of the 
misbegotten nuclear deal.
  Europe is dealing with the largest refugee migrant flow since World 
War II. This migration is entirely unsustainable and unmanageable, 
threatening European unity and individual state stability. This crisis 
could unravel the EU itself and cost trillions of euros. More than 
that, it is a humanitarian disaster.
  The Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Breedlove, in a 
discussion I had with him not that long ago, correctly said the 
migration flow has been ``weaponized.'' He argues the migration crisis 
has become a cover for flows of dangerous terrorists to Europe and 
beyond.
  Our Russia policy is one of the biggest and most long-term failures 
of American leadership in our age. The administration's infamous reset 
of Russian policy, loudly championed at the time by Mrs. Clinton, by 
the way, preceded Russia's invasion and annexation of a neighbor.
  Since the so-called reset with Russia, Russia has acquired a vastly 
greater role in the Middle East, where Russia had not before been 
present, much less dominant. It has demonstrated reliability as a 
modern capable military partner, in contrast with our own 
unreliability.
  These are just three of the crises the next President will face. 
James Clapper, speaking at a public hearing before the Senate Select 
Committee on Intelligence, handed out the current assessment of the 
crises the world faces. It was 29 pages long, with eight regional 
crises--I named three of them--and each one of them posing a 
significant threat to world order and to our own people here in the 
United States.
  Since that reset, Russia has acquired a vastly greater role, as I 
have said. The next President is going to have to face not just these 
three major crises but many, many more, and I will talk about some of 
them next week.
  We need a policy from this President and from the White House that is 
based on a clear linkage to U.S. national interests and that will 
articulate a coherent strategy to guide policy and actions that we 
take; that will be an accurate assessment of consequences, both short-
term and long term; that will be transparent, with candor and realism; 
that will have ensured resources adequate to secure the defined policy 
or task that is being laid out; and that will show strength and 
leadership coming from the Nation that every other free nation in the 
world depends upon for guidance, for strength, as an ally or coalition.
  The American people are yearning for a coherent foreign policy that 
is clear-eyed, articulate, transparent, and with common sense. They 
want to see it, and they want to understand it, and we have an 
obligation to let them know what it is. We are not going to get that 
out of this administration. That is clear. There continues to be 
confused, behind-the-curve reaction to world events and a lack of a 
solid policy to deal with it.
  If the next President can give the American people a coherent foreign 
policy that is clear-eyed, articulate, transparent and with common 
sense, we will once again begin to reassert ourselves in terms of being 
a nation dedicated to finding peace and solutions to major crises 
around the world. But if we remain guessing about purpose and 
direction, while the world disintegrates around us, our sons and 
daughters will pay a great price. As a consequence, America will 
continue to be a nation in retreat, and the free world will be confused 
and looking for a leader.
  With that, I yield the floor, as I notice another of my colleagues on 
the floor to speak.

[[Page S3710]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
up to 10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Gaspee Days

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I come here, as I do every year in the 
Senate, to commemorate the anniversary of a brave blow that Rhode 
Island struck for liberty and justice--the Gaspee Affair of 1772.
  On the night of June 9, and into the morning of June 10, 1772, in the 
waters of Rhode Island, a band of American patriots pushed back against 
their British overlords and drew the first blood of the struggle that 
would become the American Revolution.
  American schoolchildren, the pages here in this room, and all of us 
no doubt learned in their history books of the Boston revelers who 
painted their faces and pushed tea into Boston harbor. But those same 
history books often omit the tale of the Gaspee, a bloodier saga, which 
occurred more than a year earlier.
  As tensions with the American colonies grew, King George III 
stationed revenue cutters, armed customs patrol vessels, along the 
American coastline to prevent smuggling, enforce the payment of taxes, 
and impose the authority of the Crown. One of the most notorious of 
these ships was the HMS Gaspee, stationed in Rhode Island's 
Narragansett Bay. The Gaspee and its captain, Lieutenant William 
Dudingston, were known for destroying fishing vessels, unjustly seizing 
cargo, and flagging down ships that had properly passed customs 
inspection in Newport only to interrogate and humiliate the colonials.
  ``The British armed forces had come to regard almost every local 
merchant as a smuggler and a cheat,'' wrote author Nick Bunker about 
that era. Rhode Islanders chafed at this egregious disruption of their 
liberty at sea, for ``out of all colonies, Rhode Island was the one 
where the ocean entered most deeply into the lives of the people.'' 
Something was bound to give.
  The spark was lit on June 9, 1772, when the Gaspee attempted to stop 
the Hannah, a swift Rhode Island trading sloop that ran routes to New 
York through Long Island Sound, bound that afternoon for Providence 
from Newport. When the Gaspee sought to hail and board the Hannah, the 
Hannah's captain, Benjamin Lindsey, ignored Lieutenant Dudingston's 
commands. As the Gaspee gave chase, Captain Lindsey veered north toward 
Pawtuxet Cove, toward the shallows off Namquid Point--known today as 
Gaspee Point--knowing that the tide was low and falling and that the 
Hannah drew less water than the Gaspee. The Hannah shot over the 
shallows off the point, but the larger Gaspee ran dead into a sandbar 
and stuck fast in a falling tide.
  Captain Lindsey wasted no time in reporting the Gaspee's predicament 
to his fellow Rhode Islanders, who rallied at the sound of a beating 
drum to Sabin's Tavern in Providence. They resolved to end once and for 
all the Gaspee's menace in Rhode Island waters.
  That night, the men shoved off from Fenner's Wharf, paddling eight 
longboats quietly down Narragansett Bay, under a moonless sky, toward 
the stranded Gaspee. As told by LCDR Benjamin F. Armstrong in Naval 
History Magazine, they were led by Captain Lindsey and Abraham Whipple, 
a merchant captain who had served as a privateer in the French and 
Indian War and who would go on to command a Continental Navy squadron 
in the Revolution. Armstrong describes the excursion as ``an 
increasingly rowdy group of Rhode Islanders who were ready to strike 
out at the oppressive work of the Royal Navy.''
  Beware, increasingly rowdy groups of Rhode Islanders will be our 
lesson.
  The boats silently surrounded the Gaspee, then shouted for Lieutenant 
Dudingston to surrender the ship. Surprised and enraged, Dudingston 
refused. Armstrong recounts the fierce, if brief, fight that ensued:

       Dudingston shouted down the hatch, calling for his crew to 
     hurry on deck whether they had clothes on or not, and then 
     ran to the starboard bow, where the first of the raiding 
     boats were coming alongside the ship. He swung at the 
     attackers with his sword, pushing the first attempted boarder 
     back into the boat. Then a musket shot rang out. The ball 
     tore through the lieutenant's left arm, breaking it, and into 
     his groin. He fell back on the deck as the raiders swarmed 
     over the sides of the ship. Swinging axe handles and wooden 
     staves, the raiders beat the British seamen back down the 
     hatchway and kept them below decks. Dudingston struggled aft 
     and collapsed in his own blood at the companionway to his 
     cabin at the stern of the ship.

  The struggle was over. One of the Rhode Islanders, a physician named 
John Mawney, tended to Dudingston's wounds. The patriots commandeered 
the Gaspee, loaded the British crew onto the longboats and took them 
ashore, and then set combustibles along the length of the Gaspee. They 
set her ablaze, and watched from a hillside onshore as the ship burned.
  When the fire reached the ship's magazine, this is what ensued. The 
Gaspee was no more.
  You can be sure that the British authorities immediately called for 
the heads of the American saboteurs. An inquiry was launched and a 
lavish reward was posted. But even though virtually all of Rhode Island 
knew about the attack, investigators were able to find no witnesses 
willing to name names. The entire colony seemed afflicted with a 
terrible case of amnesia.
  William Staple's ``Documentary History of the Destruction of the 
Gaspee'' describes this distinct cloudiness of Rhode Island memories.
  James Sabin said: ``I could give no information relative to the 
assembling, arming, training or leading on the people concerned in 
destroying the schooner Gaspee.''
  Stephen Gulley said: ``As to my own knowledge, I know nothing about 
it.''
  John Cole said he ``saw several people collected together, but did 
not know any of them.''
  William Thayer was asked: ``Do you know anything?''
  He said a simple ``No.''
  D. Hitchcock said: ``We met at Mr. Sabin's, by ourselves, and about 8 
o'clock, I went to the door, or, finally, kitchen, and saw a number of 
people in the street, but paid no attention to them.''
  Arthur Fenner said: ``I am a man of seventy-four years of age, and 
very infirmed, and at the time said schooner was taken and plundered, I 
was in my bed.''
  Completely frustrated by the Rhode Islanders' stonewalling, the 
British commissioners dropped the inquiry, finding it ``totally 
impossible at present to make a report, not having all the evidence we 
have reason to expect.''
  Nick Bunker wrote, ``The British had never seen anything quite like 
the Gaspee affair. . . . Like the Boston Tea Party, their attack on the 
ship amounted to a gesture of absolute denial: A complete rejection of 
the empire's right to rule.''
  Rhode Islanders had grown accustomed to and fiercely protective of a 
level of personal freedom unique in that time. ``Even by American 
standards,'' says Bunker, Rhode Island ``was an extreme case of popular 
government.''
  As Frederic D. Schwarz noted in American Heritage magazine, one of 
the exasperated British investigators even scorned the Rhode Island 
Colony as ``a downright democracy.''
  This Rhode Island independence streak was well known to the British 
imperialist. But the burning of the Gaspee foretold greater struggles 
to come. In the words of Commander Armstrong:

       [British officers] were beginning to realize there was 
     something more dangerous out on the water and in American 
     harbors. Alongside the salt air and the smell of wet canvas 
     was the scent of treason. A revolution began on the sandbar 
     of Namquid Point--in the spot that bears the name Gaspee on 
     today's charts of the Narragansett.

  Oh, and Boston: Nice job a year later with the tea bags.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am proud to stand once again with 
Senator Gillibrand in support of the Military Justice Improvement Act.
  Two years ago, Congress enacted a number of commonsense reforms as 
part of the National Defense Authorization Act. These changes were 
mostly good, commonsense measures, and I supported them; however, they 
were not sufficient.
  As I said at that time a year ago, we are past the point of tinkering 
with the current system and hoping that does

[[Page S3711]]

the trick. I urged the Senate at that time to support bold actions that 
would make sexual assault in the military a thing of the past.
  Unfortunately, those of us arguing for the Military Justice 
Improvement Act did not prevail. We were told to wait and see if the 
reforms that were included would work, while leaving in place the 
current military justice system. Well, we have had time to see if 
things have really changed. They have not. The rate of sexual assault 
in the military is unchanged.
  Forty-two percent of servicemember survivors who reported retaliation 
were actually encouraged to drop the issue by their supervisor or 
someone else in the chain of command. That means a crime was committed, 
and you shouldn't bother to report the crime.
  A majority of servicemember survivors indicated that they were not 
satisfied with the official actions taken against the alleged 
perpetrator.
  Three out of four survivors lacked sufficient confidence in the 
military justice system to report the crime. Isn't that awful. If we 
didn't have confidence in the local police to report a crime, we know 
just how high the crime rate would go. I suppose somebody is going to 
tell me that can't apply to the military, but it does. In fact, there 
has been a decrease in the percentage of survivors willing to make an 
unrestricted report of sexual assault.
  Two years ago, when military leaders were arguing against the reforms 
Senator Gillibrand and I and others were advocating, Congress was 
provided with data from military sexual assault cases that we now know 
was very misleading. But those statistics and data, quite frankly, 
carried great weight with a lot of our colleagues here in the Senate. 
We were told at that time that military commanders were taking cases 
that were ``declined'' by civilian prosecutors. The implication was 
very clear, as we were told that things will be all right; the military 
system results in prosecutions that civilian prosecutors turn down.
  An independent report by Protect Our Defenders and reported by the 
Associated Press shows that there was no evidence that the military was 
taking cases that civilian prosecutors would not take.
  When Senator Gillibrand and I wrote to the President asking for an 
independent investigation of how this misleading information was 
allowed to be presented to Congress, guess what. We received a response 
from Secretary Carter, and that response said it was all a 
misunderstanding. The Secretary's response went into a semantic 
discussion of the meaning of certain terms.
  Apparently, in the military justice system, when a civilian 
prosecutor agrees to defer to the jurisdiction of the military to 
prosecute a case, it is listed as a ``declination.'' Such a situation 
is very different--very different--from a civilian prosecutor refusing 
to prosecute a case. If the military asks the civilian prosecutor to 
defer to the military's jurisdiction or if it is done by mutual 
agreement, it is not a case of a civilian prosecutor turning down a 
prosecution.
  As I said, a review of the cases used to back up the Department of 
Defense's claims last year found no evidence that civilian prosecutors 
had refused those same prosecutions. Nevertheless, that was the clear 
implication of the statistics supplied to Congress by the Pentagon last 
year, and we were all sucked into that.
  The response to our letter to President Obama claimed that the 
authors of that review just didn't understand the meaning of the term 
``declined'' as it is used in the military justice system. The reality 
is that the information the Pentagon provided to Congress was obviously 
presented in a very misleading way.
  So this question: When military leaders claimed that civilian 
prosecutors had declined to prosecute cases that the military then 
prosecuted, would it have had the same impact if they added a footnote 
saying that, in this context, ``declined'' doesn't really mean 
declined?
  To summarize, the reforms we were told would reduce military sexual 
assaults haven't worked. And, folks, a rape is a rape, and a rape is a 
crime, and it needs to be reported, and it needs to be prosecuted. And, 
of course, a chief rationale for opposing our reform of the military 
justice system was based on very misleading data, as I hope I have made 
very clear.
  So how many more lives need to be ruined before we are ready to take 
bold action? If a sexual assault isn't prosecuted, predators will 
remain in the military, and that results in a perception that sexual 
assault is actually tolerated in the military culture. That destroys 
morale, and it also destroys lives. The men and women who have 
volunteered to place their lives on the line deserve better.
  Taking prosecutions out of the hands of commanders and giving them to 
professional prosecutors, who are independent of the chain of command, 
will help ensure impartial justice for the men and women of our armed 
services. That is what Senator Gillibrand's and my amendment is all 
about.
  Let's not wait any longer. Let's not be sucked into certain arguments 
that we have been sucked into in the past. Let's stand up and change 
the culture of the military so that people are prosecuted when they do 
wrongdoing. Let's get it done, and get it done on this reauthorization 
bill.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, one of the issues being discussed this 
week is the restrictions on the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the 
United States. In November 2015 and in previous years, President Obama 
has signed annual defense bills that include a prohibition on the use 
of Federal funds to close Guantanamo. The National Defense 
Authorization Act, NDAA, for 2017 keeps this crucial prohibition.
  Today I want to discuss one of the often-overlooked reasons why that 
prohibition should continue: the troubling immigration implications of 
transferring dangerous terrorist detainees from Guantanamo to the 
United States.
  This is a serious issue with serious consequences, and it is one that 
hasn't always been considered as prominently as it should be. A March 
2016 report by the Center for Immigration Studies highlighted this 
problem, and I will mention that report again in a moment.
  About 80 detainees remain at Guantanamo today. In April of this year, 
nine detainees were released and returned to Saudi Arabia. According to 
media reports, one of the most dangerous terror suspects at Guantanamo 
was among those released, and he was still committed to jihad and 
killing Americans. He and the rest of the nine released terrorists 
could very well return to the battlefield after their so-called 
rehabilitation program in Saudi Arabia.
  Rowan Scarborough of the Washington Times writes that this is exactly 
what has happened with about 30 percent of the detainees that were 
released from Guantanamo: they have resumed or are suspected of 
restarting, terrorist activity.
  In fact, Obama administration officials have admitted that these 
detainees are killing Americans. As the Washington Post reported 
earlier this week, ``at least 12 detainees released from the prison at 
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have launched attacks against U.S. or allied 
forces in Afghanistan, killing about a half-dozen Americans.'' These 
numbers will likely increase as our intelligence agencies continue to 
obtain information. Clearly, these detainees are a deadly group who 
should be held in Guantanamo for as long as necessary.
  Fortunately, right now the NDAA specifically forbids spending 
taxpayer funds to transfer any of these detainees to the United States. 
That is why, in a CNN interview earlier this year, Secretary of Defense 
Ash Carter stated that transferring Guantanamo prisoners to the United 
States is against the law.
  But Secretary Carter also said ``there are people in Gitmo who are so 
dangerous we cannot transfer them to the custody of another government 
no matter how much we trust that government . . . we need to find 
another place and it would have to be the United States.'' But if these 
individuals are too dangerous for any other country, aren't they too 
dangerous to bring to the U.S. as well? Why would we bring these 
jihadist terrorist detainees into the United States when this would 
pose significant national security risks to the American people?
  What particularly worries me about Secretary Carter's statement is 
that

[[Page S3712]]

any transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States would apply 
highly ambiguous legal doctrines that could mean these terrorists would 
eventually be released on the streets in our homeland.
  Very serious questions arise from this proposition, as the 
immigration implications of such a potential transfer are far from 
clear. Some of those questions include: What sort of immigration status 
would the Guantanamo detainees have? May Guantanamo detainees be 
detained indefinitely? Could Guantanamo detainees apply for asylum? 
What immigration benefits would the Guantanamo detainees be eligible 
for? Perhaps most important, how would U.S. courts rule on these 
issues, particularly if a future court decides that the war on terror 
has ceased? We've seen Federal courts in the past grant Guantanamo 
detainees greater rights than Congress intended.
  It is my understanding that if these detainees were to be transferred 
to the United States, it would likely be done by granting them 
``parole'' status. Immigration parole does not constitute an admission 
to the United States, but provides permission to enter the United 
States. It is supposed to be provided on a case-by-case basis, based on 
``urgent humanitarian reasons'' or ``significant public benefit.''
  As an initial matter, I don't see how paroling any of these 
terrorists into the country could be said to be either a humanitarian 
gesture or one that constituted a ``significant public benefit.'' But 
in addition to that concern, there is almost no precedent for 
immigration parole being used as a means of indefinite detention of 
aliens on U.S. territory. It should be used as a means to an end, such 
as bringing a criminal to the U.S. to serve as witness in a trial or 
allowing certain individuals in the U.S. to obtain emergency medical 
care.
  Consequently, as the Center for Immigration Studies report I 
mentioned before recently put it, ``If the Guantanamo detainees are 
transferred to the United States, we are faced with the very real 
likelihood of open-ended immigration paroles, which rely on indefinite 
imprisonment under undefined, little-understood rules and protocols.''
  Given these legal uncertainties, the most likely results for 
detainees brought to the United States who will not be tried for their 
terrorist activities, or who the administration otherwise intends to 
hold indefinitely, are writs of habeas corpus and complaints of 
violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
  The war on terror has no end in sight, so these legal actions would 
inevitably arise as a result of the detainees' newly established 
presence on American soil and the indefinite nature of their detention.
  I would further expect Federal courts to be particularly willing to 
entertain such writs or other legal actions if any of the detainees are 
tried for their crimes but not found guilty. And the risk of finding 
sympathetic, activist judges surely is heightened in the cases of the 
28 detainees already cleared for transfer but who have not yet been 
released.
  Even if some detainees are prosecuted and found guilty, they would 
serve a sentence, be ordered removed from the United States, and, 
ideally, be removed from our country upon the sentence's completion. 
But what happens if no other country--particularly their home country--
is willing to take them? This would be very likely, as statistics 
provided by the Department of Homeland Security show there are many 
countries who will simply not allow the hardcore terrorist Guantanamo 
detainees back into their country. Countries like Iran, Pakistan, 
China, Somalia and Liberia, just to mention a few, won't take custody 
of these enemy combatants. Alternatively, what if their home country, 
or another country, is willing to take them but that country is also 
likely to mistreat them to gain information about their terrorist 
activities? In that case, our obligations under the Convention Against 
Torture would prohibit us from returning the detainees to those 
countries.
  If any of those removable detainees do remain in the United States, 
we won't be able to keep them detained for very long. The U.S. Supreme 
Court ruled in Zadvydas v. Davis that the United States may not 
indefinitely detain removable aliens just because no other country 
would accept them. In order for the U.S. Government to justify the 
detention of foreign nationals longer than six months, the basic rule 
is that the government must show that there is a ``significant 
likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.'' The 
Zadvydas decision has thus set a precedent that dangerous, deportable, 
convicted criminal aliens who have completed their sentences, but who 
cannot be deported to other countries, cannot continue to be 
indefinitely detained and must be released.
  Equally concerning, if a trial were to take place that resulted in a 
sentence of anything other than capital punishment or life in prison, 
then the Zadvydas precedent would most likely require the release of 
the terrorist within 6 months of the completion of his or her sentence. 
The danger any such releases could present has unfortunately already 
been illustrated. The Zadvydas decision has already resulted in 
extraordinary violence against Americans and threats to public safety.
  In the last 3 years alone, almost 10,000 criminal aliens have been 
released from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody because 
of Zadvydas. Too many of these aliens are released because the U.S. 
cannot obtain travel documents from home countries. This has real 
consequences.
  For example, in Hillsdale, NY, a criminal alien who had been 
convicted of sexually abusing a 12-year-old girl was released onto 
American streets when his home country of Bangladesh refused to take 
him back after he had served his sentence. After his release, he 
proceeded to go on a rampage of theft and violence culminating in the 
brutal murder of a 73-year-old woman.
  Given that the Obama administration already allows the release of 
convicted, dangerous, criminal aliens into our communities, I am deeply 
concerned that a similar situation would arise from transferring the 
terror suspects from Guantanamo to the United States. Bringing these 
hardcore terrorists to the United States would be tantamount to 
injecting a disease into our society.
  As you can see, the potential transfer of these detainees presents a 
real problem with serious consequences. Many decisions will have to be 
made and discussions had regarding the viability of transferring these 
hardcore terrorist detainees to the United States.
  If the Obama administration decides to transfer these detainees to 
the continental United States, this illegal action would force serious 
constitutional issues that could lead to an impasse. The matter of 
bringing hardcore terrorists into the United States would undoubtedly 
go before the Supreme Court. Pushing to close Guantanamo and bringing 
these hardcore terrorists to the United States without exhausting all 
alternative options is especially risky to the American people as it 
pertains to national security and public safety.
  I refer my colleagues to the Center for Immigration Studies Web site 
and the March 2016 report by Dan Cadman entitled, ``The Immigration 
Implications of Moving Guantanamo Detainees to the United States.''
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, in a moment I am going to ask unanimous 
consent to address an amendment of mine to the national defense 
authorization bill, amendment No. 4066.
  There is legislation I have introduced with a number of my colleagues 
that then is reflected perhaps identically in the amendment I hope we 
will consider this evening. This amendment is related to the National 
Labor Relations Act, which was enacted in 1935. That legislation 
exempted Federal, State, and local governments but did not explicitly 
mention Native American governments from the purview of the National 
Labor Relations Act. Despite that not being mentioned for 70 years, the 
NLRB honored the sovereign status of tribes accorded to them by the 
U.S. Constitution. In fact, there is a good argument that the reason 
tribal governments were not listed in the Labor Relations Act was 
because the Constitution made clear the sovereign nation of tribes. So 
for 70 years, they were not affected by the NRLB. Unfortunately, in my 
view, beginning in 2004,

[[Page S3713]]

the NLRB reversed its treatment of tribes and legally challenged the 
right of tribes to enact so-called right-to-work laws.
  The amendment I have offered to this bill is pretty straightforward. 
The National Labor Relations Act is amended to provide that any 
enterprise or institution owned and operated by an Indian tribe and 
located on tribal lands is not subject to the NLRA.
  This narrow amendment protects tribal sovereignty and gives tribal 
governments the ability to make the best decisions for their people. 
The amendment seeks to treat tribal governments no differently from 
other levels of government, just like we treat cities and counties 
across the country.
  Sovereignty is an important aspect of tribal relations with their 
tribal members. It is something tribes take very seriously, and in my 
view, it is something Members of the Senate should take very seriously, 
in part because it is the right policy, and perhaps even more 
importantly, it is the right moral position to have. And of equal 
value, it is what the Constitution of the United States says.

  The legislation on which this amendment is based was passed by the 
House of Representatives in a bipartisan vote. Even our former 
colleague, the late Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, wrote in 2009 that 
``Congress should affirm the original construction of the NLRA by 
expressly including Indian tribes in the definition of employer.''
  This amendment presents Congress with an opportunity to reaffirm the 
constitutional recognition of tribes and the rights accorded to them 
under the supreme law of our land.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending 
amendment and call up my amendment, amendment No. 4066; that there be 
10 minutes of debate, equally divided; and that following the use or 
yielding back of time, the Senate vote in relation to the amendment 
with no second-degree amendment in order prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). Is there objection?
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
explain if I could.
  First of all, this doesn't belong in NDAA. This is not a defense 
issue, but I would like to talk more substantively about it and then 
make another statement.
  I strongly support tribal sovereignty. I know my colleagues 
appreciate Senator Moran's genuine interest in this. He is my friend. 
We have worked on a number of issues in banking together. We don't 
agree on this, but that is the way things are. I do believe both sides 
of the aisle do support tribal sovereignty.
  This amendment, though, is not about tribal sovereignty. It is about 
undermining labor laws--laws that protect the rights of workers to 
organize and collectively bargain--one of America's great values that 
more than almost anything--other than democratic government--created 
and maintained a middle class, organizing and bargaining collectively. 
Specifically, the amendment attempts to overturn NLRB decisions that 
have asserted the Board's jurisdiction over labor disputes on tribal 
lands.
  The Board has methodically evaluated when they do and don't have 
jurisdiction on tribal lands by using a very carefully crafted test to 
ensure that the Board's jurisdiction would not violate tribal rights 
and does not interfere in exclusive right to self-governance.
  In a June 2015 decision, the NLRB employed the test and did not 
assert jurisdiction in a tribal land-labor dispute. Instead, the 
amendment is part of an agenda to undermine the rights of American 
workers. We have seen it regularly. We see it in State capitols. We saw 
it in my State capitol 5 years ago when the Governor went after 
collective bargaining rights for public employees.
  For the first and only time in American history, voters in a 
statewide election said no to rolling back collective bargaining 
rights. It was the only time it ever happened, and it was by 22 
percentage points.
  The amendment is part of an agenda to undermine the rights of 
American workers, including 600,000 employees of tribal casinos--75 
percent of them are not nonnative Indians, non-Indians. Courts have 
upheld the application to the tribes of Federal employment laws, 
including Fair Labor Standards Act, the Operational Safety and Health 
Act, the Employment Retirement Income Security Act, and title III of 
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
  In addition to harming the thousands of already organized workers at 
commercial tribal enterprises, this amendment would establish a 
dangerous precedent to weaken longstanding worker protections on tribal 
lands.
  Mr. President, for these reasons, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. MORAN. I regret the objection from the Senator from Ohio and 
indicate that we will continue our efforts to see that this issue is 
addressed and the sovereignty of tribes across the Nation is protected.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am on the floor this afternoon, along 
with my good friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Connecticut. 
He is going to be here shortly to speak as well, and I thank him for 
his leadership throughout the NDAA process.
  We are here because we strongly believe that in Congress we should be 
working on ways to boost economic security for more families and help 
our economy grow from the middle out, not from the top down. A 
fundamental part of that is making sure our companies pay workers 
fairly and provide them with safe workplaces and treat them with 
respect. Unfortunately, Senator Blumenthal and I have come to the floor 
to speak against a provision that would seriously undermine the spirit 
of bipartisanship we have cultivated thus far.
  As it stands, this bill contains a provision that would help shield 
defense contractors that steal money out of their workers' paychecks or 
refuse to pay the minimum wage. It would help protect the companies 
that violate workplace safety laws while receiving taxpayer dollars, 
and it would allow companies with a history of discriminating against 
women, people of color, and individuals with disabilities to continue 
receiving defense contracts, and to me that is unacceptable.
  For too long, the Federal Government has awarded billions of taxpayer 
dollars to companies that rob workers of their paychecks and fail to 
maintain safe working conditions. To help right those wrongs, President 
Obama issued the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive order, and I 
was very proud to support him.
  Under the new proposed guidelines, when a company applies for a 
Federal contract, they will need to be upfront about their safety, 
health, and labor violations over the past 3 years. That way, 
government agencies can consider an employer's record of providing 
workers with a safe workplace and paying workers what they have earned 
before granting or renewing Federal contracts. To be clear, the new 
rules do not prevent these companies from winning Federal contracts. 
The new protections will just improve transparency so government 
agencies are aware of the company's violations and can help them come 
into compliance with the law. These are worker protection laws that are 
already on the books, including laws that affect our veterans, such as 
the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974.
  This will have some major benefits for our workers and taxpayers. 
First of all, it will help hold Federal contractors accountable. 
American taxpayers should have the basic guarantee that their dollars 
are going to responsible contractors that will not steal from their 
workers or expose their workers to safety hazards. This will help 
protect basic worker rights and that in turn will help expand economic 
security for more working families and, finally, this new protection 
will help level the playing field for businesses that follow our laws.
  These businesses should not have to compete with corporations that 
cut corners and put their workers' safety

[[Page S3714]]

at risk or cheat workers on their paychecks. It will also have another 
benefit. Some of these same irresponsible companies that exploit their 
workers are also irresponsible when it comes to staying on schedule and 
on budget.
  One report found that among the companies that had the most egregious 
workplace violations between 2005 and 2009, one-quarter of them also 
had significant performance problems like cost overruns and schedule 
delays. So these new rules will help the Federal Government choose 
contractors that are actually efficient and effective, which in return 
will help save taxpayer dollars.
  Rewarding efficient and effective contractors should be a bipartisan 
goal, but unfortunately some of my colleagues want to give defense 
contractors a special carve-out from these crucial accountability 
measures and, to me, that is unacceptable.
  It is time to stop rewarding Federal contractors that have a history 
of violating workers' rights. That is why I support the amendment of my 
colleague from Connecticut, which will make sure the Defense Department 
considers all companies' full record before granting or renewing their 
Federal contracts.
  Like many of our colleagues, I am focused on leveling the playing 
field for companies that do the right thing by their workers, protect 
American taxpayers, and boost economic security for our workers. That 
is why I remain strongly opposed to the damaging provision in the 
underlying bill, and I do hope our colleagues will join us in 
supporting our amendment to undo the carve-out and allow these critical 
protections for our workers to be implemented as they were intended.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I yield the floor and 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. BLUMENTHAL. 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. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, the amendment I filed, Blumenthal No. 
4255, will not be made pending, but I want to emphasize the importance 
of the amendment and hope I can work with my colleagues on the 
substance of it because it is so profoundly important to fairness in 
the workplace and the protection of American workers.
  My friend and colleague, the Senator from Washington, Patty Murray, 
has spoken on this issue within the last few minutes, and I join her in 
supporting the critical Executive order issued by the President called 
the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order.
  This effort requires companies doing business by the Federal 
Government to disclose whether they violated any of the 14 longstanding 
labor laws protecting American workers included in this Executive 
order. There is no requirement to disclose a mere allegation or claim 
of a violation of one of those laws, rather, the Executive order 
requires, very simply, disclosure of a determination by a court or 
administrative body of an actual violation. In effect, this Executive 
order would be gutted by the National Defense Authorization Act now on 
the floor of this Congress, and the amendment I was intending to offer 
is the very same amendment that was offered in the NDAA markup and 
supported by groups like Easter Seals and Paralyzed Veterans of 
America. They worry that the language in this law that we now have 
before us will do a damaging injustice to our veterans and constituents 
with disabilities and thousands of other employees working under 
Federal contracts.
  I am proud to be joined in this effort by not only Senator Murray but 
also Senators Franken, Gillibrand, Brown, Sanders, Leahy, Baldwin, 
Merkley, Boxer, Casey, and the ranking member of the committee with 
jurisdiction over this bill, Senator Jack Reed of the Armed Services 
Committee, where the Presiding Officer and I sit.
  We need to ensure that the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive 
Order applies across all Federal agencies and to all workers, or as 
many as possible at least, strengthening this vital effort to protect 
workers and taxpayer dollars. It is not only about workers, it is also 
about taxpayer dollars.
  The laws that are covered here are sort of the bread-and-butter 
protections of all Federal workers and all workers, generally, such as 
the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, 
and the Civil Rights Act. Other laws that may be more obscure are also 
covered, but they have been around for decades, and this measure and 
those laws are designed to protect veterans and women from harmful, 
debilitating discrimination, among other wrongful practices.
  Let's be very clear. Most companies covered by Federal contracts play 
by the rules and obey the law. All they would need to do is literally 
check a box confirming that they are in compliance. There are no big 
administrative expenses or elaborate bureaucratic hurdles to overcome. 
They just need to check a box to confirm that they are in compliance. 
For the small subset of companies with compliance issues, the 
contracting agency would take information about violations into 
consideration in the procurement process. This is not to bar them. They 
can still be considered, but they would then try to work with the 
company to make sure it comes into compliance with the law.
  The basic theory of this Executive order is a matter of common sense. 
It is not about blacklisting companies. It is about ensuring that 
companies that want to do business with the Federal Government follow 
the law and provide a safe, equitable, and fair workplace. Those are 
the companies we can trust in being our partners in carrying out the 
Federal Government's work, as long as they obey the law and are in 
compliance with it.
  Companies that violate those laws should not receive taxpayer 
dollars. Companies that violate the law, very bluntly, are creating an 
unlevel playing field and forcing law-abiding companies into an unfair 
competition for contracts. They can cut corners, save money by in 
effect skirting the law, present lowball offers, and when they are 
hired, provide poor performance--again, wasting Federal funds to the 
detriment of taxpayers.

  Of course, it is not just about dollars--important to the taxpayer--
but about workers. Every year, tens of thousands of American workers 
are denied overtime wages. Unlawfully discriminated against in hiring 
and pay, they have their health and safety put at risk by Federal 
contractors who cut those corners on workers' safety or otherwise deny 
a basic safe workplace, and that is another reason we need full force 
and effect to this Executive order, not the gutting of it that is 
contained now in the NDAA before us.
  Some have called the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive order one 
of the most important advances for workers achieved by this 
administration, and it is. According to the Department of Labor, one in 
five Americans are employed by companies that do business with the 
Federal Government, an enormous source of leverage requiring compliance 
with Federal protections, not just in letter but in spirit. We must 
very simply allow for consistent and appropriate application of this 
Executive order to ensure that workers or contractors under the defense 
laws have the same protections as other workers.
  The NDAA provision that guts this Executive order must be removed at 
some point. It may not happen in our consideration of this measure now, 
but my hope is that we can work with colleagues and overcome the 
potentially harmful effects of this provision.
  I look forward, in fact, to a collegial effort to make sure that we 
provide long-term protections to American workers through this 
Executive order.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SASSE. 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. SASSE. Mr. President, why is it that Washington also jumps 
blindly into culture war fighting? Why is it we first divide into blue 
shirts versus red shirts, retreat into our tribes, and then try to 
figure out how we can inflict

[[Page S3715]]

maximum damage on each other? That is not how adults in the communities 
across our country solve their problems, and that is not how they would 
like us to be solving our problems, but that is actually what is 
happening right now in this body.
  The legislation before the Senate is supposed to be about national 
security, which is the first and most important duty of the Federal 
Government. Republicans and Democrats, all 100 Members of this body, 
tell ourselves and tell our constituents that we love and want to 
support and provide for the troops.
  I want that to be true. Thus, I think we should be able to agree that 
national security is far more important than trying to run up partisan 
scores in another culture war battle. By the way, culture war battles 
are almost never settled well by compulsion, by government, and by 
force.

  But here we are, getting ready to have divide again, this time over 
the issue of women in the draft, and I want to ask why.
  Let me ask a question that should be obvious. Why are we now fighting 
about drafting our sisters, our mothers, and our daughters into a draft 
that no one anywhere is telling us they need?
  Seriously, where is there any general who has appeared before us and 
said that the most pressing issue or even a pressing issue about our 
national security challenges and efforts at the present time is that we 
don't have enough people to draft? Where has that happened? Who has 
said it? Because I have been listening, and I haven't heard a single 
person from the national security community come before us and say: Do 
you know what we need? We need more people in the draft.
  I haven't heard that conversation anywhere.
  This fight about women in the draft is entirely unnecessary, and 
wisdom should be nudging us to try to avoid unnecessary fighting. We 
have enough big, real, and important fighting we should be doing around 
here. Why would we take on unnecessary fighting?
  So before we send out our press releases and before we decide to 
condemn people that are on the other side of a culture war battle, why 
don't we just pause and together agree on this one indisputable fact: 
We have the best fighting force that the world has ever known. In fact, 
it is an all-volunteer force right now. We are not drafting anybody, 
and no one is recommending that we draft anybody. So why are we having 
this fight?
  Rather than needlessly dividing the American people over a 20th 
century registration process, why wouldn't we do this: Why wouldn't we 
pause, stop the expansion of the draft, stop to study the purposes of 
the draft, and actually evaluate whether we need a draft? Maybe we do, 
but let's actually evaluate it before we start fighting over the most 
controversial pieces of it.
  Let's not start by fighting about who to add to the draft. Let's not 
start by trying to import culture warring into a national security 
bill. Let's start by asking if we are really certain we need the draft.
  I am introducing a simple amendment, and I hope that this body could 
agree that its aim is common sense and its aim is to deescalate our 
bitter conflicts. My simple amendment would replace the NDAA's 
controversial draft provisions with three relatively noncontroversial--
and I think much more important--steps.
  No. 1, my amendment would ask the Senate to admit that the draft, 
which last had a call, by the way--the last call of the draft was in 
December of 1972. I was 10 months old, and I think I am 5 years older 
than the youngest Member of this body. The last time there was a call 
in the draft was December of 1972. We should probably admit that it is 
time for a reevaluation instead of just continuing on autopilot.
  No. 2, it would sunset the draft 3 years from now unless this body 
decides that we have consulted the generals and we can tell the 
American people that we need the draft to continue. So the second thing 
it does is sunset the draft 3 years in the future unless we would act 
to restore the draft.
  No. 3, it requires the Secretary of Defense to report back to this 
body--to report back to the Congress--in 6 months on the merits of the 
Selective Service System rather than simply continuing it on status quo 
autopilot, unscrutinized.
  Again, this isn't asking the Secretary of Defense to wade into the 
culture wars or to take a lead in any social engineering. By the way, I 
am the father of two girls so there is nobody who is going to outbid me 
on the limitless potential of young women in American life, but that is 
not what this is all about. This is about the Secretary of Defense 
reporting back to us after consulting with the generals and telling us 
one of three things.
  I think it was a pretty simple question. We should have the Secretary 
of Defense come back before Congress in 6 months and say to us one of 
three things. Either, A, the all-volunteer forces we are actually using 
right now are sufficient and they think the draft is obsolete, in which 
case the sunset would just go into effect; or, B, they would tell us 
that after consideration they believe the draft is still necessary and 
some version of the present draft should be continued; or, C, they 
actually think we have a deficit of human capital to potentially draft, 
and they think we need an expansion of the draft. Then this body could 
debate who do we expand it to.
  But let's first have the Secretary of Defense consult the generals, 
come back to us in 6 months, and say: A, an all-volunteer force works; 
B, we have about the right amount of human capital registered for the 
draft; or C, we think we need to expand the draft.
  Maybe we will say we should have men who are older than 26 years 
added to the draft. Maybe we should add women. Maybe there will be some 
other configuration of people we would add to the draft. But until we 
know we need more people in the draft or that we need a draft at all, 
why would we dive headlong into what would be the most controversial 
version of this debate.
  Again, the generals are probably going to tell us they are fine with 
an all-volunteer force, but we don't know that. So why don't we have 
them report back before we start bickering.
  One of the fundamental purposes of this body is to debate the biggest 
issues facing the Nation and to do so in an honorable way. That is what 
the Senate is for. The reason we have a Senate is to debate--not 
abstractions--but to address and ultimately solve the meatiest 
challenges that the Constitution in present circumstances demands we 
tackle. Right now women in the draft isn't really one of those issues, 
so I don't know why we would start fighting about it and dividing so 
many of the American people about it.
  If there is any Senator who believes that the purpose of the NDAA 
should be to have a culture war fight, humbly I would invite him or her 
to come to the floor and please make that case. If there is a reason we 
should have a culture war fight in the context of the NDAA, tell us why 
we should do it. But, if not, let's avoid unnecessary cultural division 
and stick with the actual national security tasks that are before us 
today.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________