Congressional Record, Volume 162 Issue 91 (Thursday, June 9, 2016)

[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,

[[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,

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.

____________________