[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 93 (Wednesday, June 6, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3005-S3023]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019--MOTION TO
PROCEED
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 442,
H.R. 5515.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 442, H.R. 5515, a bill to
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2019 for military
activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of
Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such
fiscal year, and for other purposes.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion
to proceed be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I hope this
is just going to be a speed bump on the way to getting on to the NDAA,
because that is very important legislation that I want to get to, but I
have an amendment. It happens to be a germane amendment to a very, very
important part of this bill--the CFIUS reform legislation recently
reported out of the Banking Committee.
I want to continue to work with the chairman and the ranking member
and the leader to ensure that I will have an opportunity to offer this
amendment. That is all I am looking for--to have a vote on my germane
amendment. When we can work that out, I will be happy to grant my
consent, but in the meantime, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Cloture Motion
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk on
the motion to proceed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
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 motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 442, H.R. 5515, an act to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2019 for military activities
of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and
for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to
prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year,
and for other purposes.
Mitch McConnell, Todd Young, Mike Rounds, John Cornyn,
Johnny Isakson, Joni Ernst, John Hoeven, Thom Tillis,
James E. Risch, Tom Cotton, Dan Sullivan, Mike Crapo,
Roger F. Wicker, John Thune, James M. Inhofe, John
Barrasso, Deb Fischer.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call
be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me just share what just happened here.
I have been involved with this for a long time, including over in the
House when we had our NDAA. Now, I am fully aware and everybody here
knows that we have passed this NDAA for 57 consecutive years, and we
are going to pass it. But one of the things I really don't like about
the procedure is that one person--any one person, Democrat or
Republican--can object, as this was just objected to, and cause us to
have to file cloture. This is going to put this off for a period of
time, and two undesirable results can result. One result can be that it
can ultimately deny Members from offering their amendments, whether
they are germane or not.
I will state how much I appreciate the fact that Senator Reed and I
in our committee have worked very closely together, and we made a
decision that we want to have an open amendment process. We had
discussion of this in our committee and everyone agrees with this.
This could have the effect of ultimately closing the door to everyone
who has an amendment. We don't want that, but we did everything we
could to stop an objection from taking place so that we could at least
move on to the bill.
We need to get on the bill, and then we can try to do all kinds of
arrangements. At one time, Senator Reed and I talked about maybe coming
up with 10 amendments or 15 amendments or 3 amendments each, Democrats
and Republicans, so that we could at least say to the individuals on
our side--and I would say to my Republican friends--that I will do
everything within my power to see that you get a vote. Unfortunately
you can't do that because you can't guarantee there will be a vote. So
that is the thing I regret, and the other bad part of this is that it
is going to put it off for about a week.
I just got back from all of our war zones, talking to our troops on
the ground, telling them that this is going to happen, that we are
going to be taking up the NDAA, and telling them what is in it in terms
of pay raises, what is in it in terms of priorities, and how we are
going to try to get modernized. Right now we have several pieces of
equipment that over the last 10 years have been ignored, and we have
peer competitors in Russia and in China that have better equipment than
we do. An artillery piece is evaluated by rapid fire and range, and
right now our rapid fire is not as fast as either Russia's or China's.
We see what is happening in the China Sea. We are over there. We see
that our allies are looking and thinking: You know, the Chinese are
preparing for World War III. What are we doing?
By postponing this, all of our troops and all of our very valued
people who are risking their lives on a daily basis are going to
wonder: Why didn't we go ahead and go with this thing? It is wrong.
I do want to say this. Senator Reed and I and our committees did
everything we could to try to accommodate everyone as best as our rules
would allow us to do. In living with the limitations that we have, we
have done everything we can do.
I do want to compliment the entire Senate Armed Services Committee.
We have also worked on the House side. Between Senator Reed and me--
Democrats and Republicans--we have done everything we could to keep
this from happening. Again, as long as I can remember, at the last
minute, one Senator can put this off and create the damage and
potential damage that has been created now. I do regret that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, first, this is an opportunity for me to
commend and thank the Senator from Oklahoma for extraordinary
leadership on the committee. Obviously, we were all inspired by
Chairman McCain and his incredible leadership over the last many,
[[Page S3006]]
many years, but the Senator from Oklahoma has stood up there and really
set a tone--and I think the Presiding Officer understands because he
was there--of very purposeful, very deliberate, very collegial activity
to bring everyone involved into the process. We were operating
basically under the rules of appropriateness for the committee and a
close connection to the Department of Defense because, as Chairman
Inhofe said, this is ultimately about the men and women wearing the
uniform of the United States.
Always, every year--we will pass this bill; I am confident of that
because of the chairman's leadership and because of colleagues like the
Presiding Officer. But each and every year, people see this as the only
train leaving town, and we have to be able to keep in balance that this
is about the Department of Defense and related agencies, like the
National Nuclear Security Administration, for example, and the DOE and
other agencies. We would like to be able to open up the floor to
amendments that are closely connected and have a clear nexus to the
Department of Defense, and the men and women in the Department of
Defense, and then have votes. That is the ideal, and we hope we can do
that.
We might have to spend some time procedurally getting to the bill. We
will get to the bill, and under the leadership of Chairman Inhofe, we
will get the bill done. We hope to be able to accommodate our
colleagues as much as possible with amendments, and I hope these
amendments will be directed once again to the activities, priorities,
and critical needs of the men and women of the Armed Forces and related
agencies. If we do that, I think we will have a very successful and
very productive floor debate, as we did in the committee.
Again, let me thank the Senator from Oklahoma. We both stand ready to
work and get this bill done for the men and women wearing the uniform
of the United States.
Thank you.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I think it is kind of unprecedented to
have, in this case, the acting chairman and the ranking member be so
close together on what we have attempted to do.
I think it is worthwhile to note, as Senator Reed brought up, that we
had the committee hearing on this, and it is very rare we come out as
we did on that. We actually did that in 1 day. It was 1 day, and it was
9 hours total. I am not sure if that is some kind of a record or not,
but it shows that we are working very well together, and I was hoping
that would take care of this today.
Anyway, we are now going to start discussing this bill. Since we have
lost the opportunity to move to the bill and actually start on
amendments, I think it is more important now to at least talk about
what we are anticipating. Today we will begin consideration--even
though we are not on the bill, we can still talk about it. This is the
John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2019.
It is the most important piece of legislation we consider every year.
As I have said, this is now the 57th consecutive year that we have
done this. I remember that just a few years ago we got very close to
the middle of December or the end of December, which is an absolute
deadline to get it done for the fiscal year. We had to go to the big
four, and we got it done and got it passed. Well, we don't want to do
that now. We want to do it the right way, and we want to consider all
of the amendments because in that year, we got the bill, but we didn't
consider any amendments.
You can talk to any of the Members. A lot of times they were in
closed meetings, and we talked about the necessity of getting the
amendments opened up so that anyone could offer an amendment, and, of
course, they were denied doing that at that time. Now we are still in a
position that we can do this, but it has put it off about a week.
Anyway, this is the most important legislation we pass every year.
One more time, I want to thank Senator Jack Reed, the ranking member of
the Armed Services Committee, for his work on this and for the fact
that we were able to do it as rapidly as we did. I also want to thank
the majority leader, Senator McConnell, not only for bringing the NDAA
to the floor this week, but also for his willingness to do so under
regular order. That is what we wanted, and we were able to do it.
Finally, and most importantly, I want to thank the committee
chairman, Senator John McCain, for his strong leadership in the
preparation of the NDAA this year, which he has done each year for a
long period of time. Make no mistake, he may not be here today, but
this is his bill. His priorities and his policy objectives are in this
bill. This year's NDAA is a true embodiment of what Chairman McCain has
worked to advance during his decades of service and his tenure as
chairman of this committee. It deserves to bear his name, and it does
bear his name.
We are all keeping Chairman McCain in our hearts and our prayers as
he continues to prove that he is the fighter we all know him to be. I
am sure he is watching right now. Senator McCain, we all know the
fighter you are. There is no one else like you, and we want you to
continue that fight, and we are anticipating that is going to be taking
place.
The NDAA represents some of the finest traditions of this body. For
57 years, Congress has passed this vital legislation to authorize
funding and provide the necessary authority for our military to protect
this great Nation.
I am proud that the Senate Armed Services Committee overwhelmingly
passed this bill. I think, at one point, we had 300 amendments. We were
able to sit down, reason together, incorporate several of them into a
managers' package, come to the committee, and actually pass it
overwhelmingly.
This is more than just a piece of legislation, but it is a message to
each and every one of our servicemembers that they are our No. 1
priority. That is why I didn't like the idea that there is an objection
to moving to this bill today. I was with our servicemembers who are
overseas all last week, telling them what we were going to do, why we
were going to do it, and why it is a top priority. Unfortunately, this
sends the wrong message to them.
This is more than just a piece of legislation; it is what we have to
do to defend our Nation. After all, you have to keep in mind that the
No. 1 thing we need to be doing here in the U.S. Senate, as well as in
the House, is defending America. Our Founding Fathers said that; it is
in the Constitution; and that is what we are about do to now.
The fiscal year 2019 NDAA keeps faith with our troops. It has a 2.6-
percent pay raise--the largest in 10 years--which, in some small way,
honors their enormous sacrifice.
In total, the NDAA supports $716 billion in fiscal year 2019 for
national defense. It authorizes a base defense budget of $639 billion
for the Department of Defense and the national security programs of the
Department of Energy, as well as $69 billion in the overseas
contingency fund. When it all adds up, you have $716 billion. That is
what we should be doing around here. We are glad we are at the point
where we can give priority to defending our Nation, as it should always
have been.
This is funding an important step toward recovering from years of
cuts in our defense budget under the Budget Control Act and
sequestration, which harmed our military readiness and slowed down our
modernization efforts. As I mentioned before, sequestration has held us
back, but it has not held our adversaries back. All the time we were
held back over the last 10 years, our peer competition out there--
Russia and China--haven't been holding back. That is why I said that in
areas such as artillery, they are ahead of us.
Every time I go--and I am sure the Chair finds the same thing to be
true--back home where the real people are, they assume we have the best
of everything. That was the kind of standard we had set in World War
II, and, of course, we backed away from that. We have areas--not just
artillery, but triad and hypersonic--in which we were not able to keep
that up, and all the time that we were doing nothing for the last 10
years in the triad system, the Chinese and the Russians were advancing,
and they are ahead of us now.
Hypersonic is something not many people know about. It is a weapons
system that moves at five times the speed of sound, and this is
something that is
[[Page S3007]]
going to be where future wars are going to be fought. Yet China and
Russia are both ahead of us right now.
So with this bill, we are going back and are advancing in some areas
where we have been very, very slow. The goal, as always, is to provide
our warfighters with the resources and capabilities they need and to do
so on time, on schedule, and at a reasonable cost.
Now I am going to run over this because I think it is important that
people out there know--and even some Members in this body, if they are
not on the committee, might not be aware--that the legislation
authorizes starting $23 billion for shipbuilding to fund 10 new
construction battle force ships. It also provides for the procurement
of 117 naval aviation aircraft. It has $7.6 billion to procure 75 F-35
Joint Strike Fighters.
I think we all recognize the mistake we made back when we had the F-
22. We should have, at that time, stayed with the original amount, and
now we regret we didn't do it. We don't want to make that mistake with
the F-35s, so we have that provision in there.
We have $2.3 billion to procure 14 KC-46s. This is kind of
interesting because that is ultimately going to replace the KC-135s,
which have been around for 58 years now. I can remember, in the last
administration, the Secretary of the Air Force was having an event, and
I remember commenting at Altus Air Force Base that in 1959 two
wonderful things had happened. No. 1, I got married and, No. 2, we
delivered our first KC-135. She said: Well, I guess that offers
security for you here at Altus for the next 59 years, and I think it
does. That is how important that is. Our KC-46s are necessary, and this
has the procurement of 14 of these.
We have $350 million to procure Air Force light attack aircraft;
procurement of 117 Army helicopters; $70 million to prototype the next-
generation combat vehicle; and $100 million each for the U.S. Marine
Corps light attack aircraft and Group 5 Unmanned Aerial System; and
lastly, $10 billion for the Missile Defense Agency.
That is finally getting us up to where we had fallen behind during
the last administration. We might as well say it as it is. We now have
everyone agreeing. This is good. This bill has been unnecessarily
postponed for another week. Someone is making a point there.
Along the way, the NDAA makes adjustments to the administration's
budget request to ensure programs are sustainable and accountable and
protecting American taxpayer dollars. It also takes steps to ensure we
are prepared for a world defined by strategic competition with China
and Russia, addressing China's militarization of the South China Sea,
and deterring Russia's military aggression and cyber attacks.
We know that is happening right now. Several of us, including the
Presiding Officer, just about a month ago, were in the South China Sea.
You see what the Chinese are doing, which is totally illegal. It is not
land they own. They talk about reclaiming land. They are not reclaiming
land. It wasn't previously claimed by anybody. They have seven islands
now out there. We are talking about over 33,000 acres out there where
they created huge military formations. All of our allies in that part
of the world are assuming they now have to take sides in what might be
World War III. You see that what they are putting on these islands is
all military, 100 percent, just as if they are preparing for World War
III. It is a huge thing happening right now. We saw it there.
By the way, it is not just the South China Sea. We just got back from
Djibouti. The first time in the history of China, they have military
bases that are not within the confines of China. This supports the
implementation of the Nuclear Posture Review by authorizing $65 million
to develop a low-yield, submarine-launched ballistic missile. I know
that is controversial, and there will be amendments on there. We look
forward to that.
The ranking member and I don't agree on everything. This is one area
that probably we don't agree on. We want to have amendments. We want to
have an open debate. That is what we are going to have. Unfortunately,
that is going to be delayed for a period of time that I believe is
unnecessary.
Finally, the NDAA supports our allies and partners around the world.
It authorizes $5.2 billion for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund.
We just got back from Afghanistan. Things are going well there. We
had a chance to talk to General Nicholson and the rest over there. Some
good things are happening, despite what an unfriendly press sometimes
wants to lead you to believe.
For the fight against terrorism, it authorizes $1.2 billion for the
counter-ISIS efforts via the Train and Equip Programs in Iraq and
Syria. The Train and Equip Program is one we all agree--at least in the
committee--that it is very important to continue. It authorizes $6.3
billion for the European Deterrence Initiative and $200 million for
security assistance to Ukraine, including defensive lethal assistance.
This is something we should have done a long time ago. I happened to
be in Ukraine when they had their last election--well, actually about 3
years ago. That was a time when, for the first time in 96 years,
Ukraine didn't have one Communist in its Parliament. They did that
because they love us. Of course, people came in and started killing
them. We know what happened there. It was well publicized.
We had the opportunity to send some lethal defensive equipment over
there to help them since they have this love for the West. At that
time, the administration wouldn't allow that to take place.
Anyway, we offer $500 million for Israeli cooperative missile defense
programs. By the way, I always like to say, when talking about Israel,
there is kind of an assumption out there that they are dormant, and we
are providing this. They actually have developed some systems over
there that are superior to ours. There is no better relationship
anywhere in the world than between the United States and Israel. Good
things are happening there. The President is strongly in support of
that. Of course, we have a great guy over there who looks to us as
their closest friend.
It also includes the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act
that was adopted by the Senate Banking Committee, which will give the
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States the authority it
needs to address some of the national security concerns.
As we move forward to considering the fiscal year 2019 NDAA, we have
to remember our primary constitutional responsibility is to provide for
the common defense of our great Nation. We forget that. People go back
home and never talk about defending America. They kind of play on this
assumption that we already have all we need and that it is no longer a
mission that is worth fighting for. We have to face the facts that this
is the most dangerous world we have ever faced. The military advantage
we once enjoyed has eroded, and we cannot delay modernizing our
capabilities and restoring readiness.
You don't have to go any further than looking at some of these
countries like North Korea. Right now, some good things are happening.
I believe, 6 days from now, a meeting will take place between Kim Jong-
un and our President. It is unprecedented, and I am very excited about
it. Nonetheless, in this world today, you can have one small country
that has the capability of wiping out an American State, and it is
something we haven't been dealing with in the past. That is all part of
this bill we are talking about now that we are going to be passing and
going to conference with the House.
Today, our Nation commemorates the 74th anniversary of D-day. The
brave Americans who stormed the beaches of Normandy embodied the spirit
that continues to inspire the service and sacrifice of so many--
fighting, sometimes against unsurmountable odds, in the name of
freedom, and we won.
I urge my colleagues to keep in mind the meaning of this day
throughout consideration of this legislation, the John S. McCain
National Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019. It will help assert
the quantitative and qualitative military advantage we will have. I
would almost say reassert that because we have lost it. General Dunford
made the statement that we are falling behind in our ways. It has
always been our qualitative and quantitative advantage over the enemy.
[[Page S3008]]
I hope the ranking member agrees we can move forward with an open
amendment process. This is very important. This is one we all agreed
on, and we were hoping we would be in that process right now, but it
didn't happen. Unfortunately, sometimes it is going to be lost.
We are committed to working with everyone here as soon as possible
and get the amendments rolling.
I want to yield to Senator Reed, but before I do, I want to make sure
we get on the record that I have never seen, in the years I have been
here, more cooperation than we have between the Democrats and
Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, let me again thank Chairman Inhofe. I, too,
will comment that the collaboration and cooperation was superb in the
committee. A great deal of that was the result of his work, and, as I
mentioned before, the inspiration of Chairman McCain.
Mr. President, I join the Senator from Oklahoma to rise and discuss
the fiscal year 2019 national defense authorization bill, which passed
out of the Armed Services Committee on May 23 with a very strong
bipartisan vote.
First, I would like to recognize Chairman McCain, after whom this
bill was named. Senator McCain has guided this committee through
several NDAAs with a steady hand and unyielding leadership. His
commitment to a bipartisan process has been an example of the way
Congress should function, and I am pleased to say this bill, again,
follows in that tradition.
I also want to thank Senator Inhofe, who has ably and graciously led
the committee this year through many hearings and an extremely
efficient markup, which produced the bipartisan bill we are beginning
to consider. We would like to have begun considering it and taking
amendments today, but we will consider it, we will pass it, and we will
continue the outstanding record of annually passing a national defense
act for the men and women in the Armed Forces.
The committee has thoughtfully considered the President's budget
request, held hearings on national security challenges, and received
briefings on emerging threats. The result of this hard work is a bill,
I believe, that will improve the readiness and capability of our Armed
Forces, push back on our adversaries that threaten the democratic
system and the global order, and improve the quality of life for our
servicemembers and their families.
This bill reflects the strategic shift toward prioritizing the
strategic competition with Russia and China. It supports the
President's budget request for resources to deter, and, if necessary,
defend against aggression from near-peer competitors. This includes
$6.3 billion for the European Deterrence Initiative as a continuing
demonstration of our commitment to the security of our European allies
and the deterrence of Russian expansionism. It also requires a 5-year
plan from the Department for the Asia-Pacific Stability Initiative on
the necessary resources and activities to counter China's destabilizing
behavior in the region.
The bill also includes a provision calling on the administration to
urgently complete a comprehensive strategy to counter Russian malign
influence below the level of direct military conflict. Russia attacked
the heart of our democracy in 2016, and our intelligence experts warn
of even more sophisticated Russian attacks targeting this year's
midterm elections. Yet the administration has failed to bring together
our military and nonmilitary tools of national power to counter this
Russian aggression, despite a requirement in last year's NDAA to submit
to Congress a whole-of-government strategy to counter Russian malign
influence.
This bill expresses the sense of the Senate that the administration
should complete a counter-Russian influence strategy without delay.
Over the course of the past year, the committee has held numerous
hearings in which witnesses have told us, in no uncertain terms, that
the President has not tasked the Department of Defense to prepare to
respond to a repeat of Russia's influence campaign. Their ongoing
campaign of misinformation has largely been conducted through cyber
space--a domain that the Department of Defense has specially trained
cyber forces designed to disrupt significant cyber attacks.
It is my belief that the ongoing attacks on our democratic process
constitute such a significant attack. Therefore, it is noteworthy that
the bill includes a provision that would directly and clearly authorize
the Secretary of Defense to employ our cyber mission forces to defend
against Russian attacks on our democracy.
With respect to countering the continued threat by ISIS, the bill
extends the Iraq and Syria Train and Equip Programs at the requested
funding level, while requiring appropriate information with respect to
the partner forces to be trained and the expected level of engagement
with U.S. forces. This is a prudent approach that recognizes the
continued threat from ISIS while ensuring appropriate oversight of
these authorities in a dynamic environment.
I am pleased the bill also includes provisions designed to
incorporate lessons learned from the campaign against ISIS that can be
used to more effectively account for and respond to allegations of
civilian casualties going forward.
As the tip of the spear of our efforts to counter violent extremist
groups like ISIS across the globe, our Special Operations forces
require the best equipment and training possible. The bill authorizes
full funding for the Special Operations Command and includes important
provisions to enhance the ability of the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict to act as the service
Secretary-like civilian responsible for the oversight and advocacy for
all our Special Operations forces.
For the Navy and Marine Corps, I believe the bill represents a
continuation of the efforts that are so important for improving our
Armed Forces. The proposals would begin significant efforts to improve
the readiness of Navy and Marine Corps aircraft, ships, tanks, and
other weapons systems.
I am pleased the bill, for the second year, authorizes funds to help
reduce the risk for ramping up submarine construction as we start the
Columbia-class program to replace the Ohio-class strategic missile
submarines.
While I support many of the provisions of the bill regarding the Navy
and Marine Corps, I do have some concerns that the bill makes sizable
reductions in the Marine Corps request for the upgraded amphibious
assault vehicle that will remain the backbone of the Marine Corps'
amphibious assault capability for years to come. I believe this is
shortsighted, and I plan to continue to work with my colleagues on this
issue throughout the process.
For the Air Force, this bill authorizes the A-10 wing replacement
program to ensure the readiness of our A-10 fleet. Additionally, the
bill authorizes $350 million for the Air Force to procure light attack
aircraft and $2.3 billion for 14 KC-46 tankers. It also provides
multiyear procurement authority for the C-130J program.
The bill also has provisions to begin to address the growing
challenge of operating and supporting the F-35 fleet for all services.
I believe this challenge will be with us for a long time, and we have
to take additional actions in the future. We have begun this process.
Finally, JSTARS is the command-and-control aircraft for ground
forces. Presently, the Air Force plans to retire JSTARS with the hope--
not the plan, but the hope--of replacing it in the future with a new
concept. I believe the bill takes a very responsible position by
preventing the Air Force from retiring the current fleet of JSTARS
aircraft, and it provides additional resources to help the Air Force
accelerate developing and fielding new capabilities to replace the
current ground moving target indicator capability provided by JSTARS.
In short, we shouldn't take JSTARS away until we have something very
credible and capable to replace it.
As the Department of Defense prioritizes long-term strategic
competition with China and Russia, the Army will be required to balance
the high-end, near-peer fight while seeking more efficient approaches
to counterterrorism activities. This will be a significant shift for
the Army, given that
[[Page S3009]]
for nearly the past 17 years, they have focused on combat operations in
Iraq, Afghanistan, and, most recently, in Syria.
In addition, the Army has had a spotty track record in recent decades
with major acquisition programs. Coupled with the effects of the Budget
Control Act and sequestration, the Army has had to defer modernizing
platforms aimed at conflict with a peer adversary.
Recognizing the need to overhaul Army acquisition processes, the Army
has created a number of cross-functional teams tasked with breaking
down acquisition stovepipes so that new technologies and modernized
platforms could be delivered to the force in a more effective manner. I
commend the senior leadership of the Army for making acquisition reform
a priority, and I believe the bill that we are considering today
supports investments for critical weapons systems and research and
development activities.
For example, the bill authorizes full funding for the Army's request
for Abrams battle tanks, as well as Army helicopters to include AH-64
Apache helicopters and UH-60M Black Hawks. The bill also makes targeted
investments to improve the range and lethality of Army artillery
systems, and it supports the fielding of active protection systems on
our combat vehicles in order to better protect our soldiers.
Again, there is much in this area that I support, but I am concerned
that some programs were not fully funded, most notably the Joint Light
Tactical Vehicle program. While the Senate must always closely review
the President's annual budget request, we must also be mindful of the
impact to the force. Ensuring that our soldiers have the equipment and
resources they need on the battlefield is our highest priority.
In the area of space, this committee has taken in-depth briefings on
the threats we face to the use of our space systems. While many of the
details are classified, I am satisfied with the investments we are now
making in this area, given that space is increasingly becoming a
contested domain upon which our ground, sea, and air forces rely upon
worldwide. I would only comment to my colleagues that in the last
year's National Defense Authorization Act, we made substantial changes
to the Department's space governance--the way they operate and the
policy development within the Department of Defense--and we should give
the Department the time it needs to implement these new proposals
before we consider additional tasks for the Department.
In the area of acquisition and technology, I am pleased to see that
the bill continues efforts at acquisition streamlining and reform and
tries to strengthen DOD's STEM and acquisition workforces. We continue
to take steps to improve the Pentagon's ability to deploy information
technology systems and embrace modern commercial software production
practices. We also included a number of provisions that will strengthen
the U.S. defense manufacturing industrial base, which is so critical to
our ability to deal with threats around the world.
The committee's bill authorizes significant increases in funding for
science and technology programs, above the President's requested
levels, including supporting critical research areas, like quantum
computing, artificial intelligence, hypersonics, and directed energy.
We are in a full-scale technological race with China, with implications
to both our national security and economic success, and many provisions
in this bill are aimed to help us win that race.
This bill includes efforts to drive the Pentagon to engage more with
our world-leading universities and small businesses to leverage their
innovation and create the technologies that will shape the future
battlefield and drive the economy. Among other things, the bill
establishes a DOD venture capital program to invest in high-tech
startups, as well as permanently reauthorizing the successful Small
Business Innovation Research Program.
In the area of personnel, the bill includes a number of provisions
designed to modernize the military officer personnel management system
by giving the services greater flexibility to commission and promote
individuals with the training and experience in specialized areas
needed by the services.
The bill also addresses domestic violence and child abuse by
establishing a new punitive article in the Uniform Code of Military
Justice, prohibiting domestic violence and requiring programs to
address child abuse and domestic violence on military installations.
The bill addresses the issue of opioid abuse by military personnel
and their families by requiring a pilot program to minimize early
opioid exposure and creating a new program for sharing information
about opioid prescriptions with state prescription-drug monitoring
programs.
The bill also supports a high quality of life for servicemembers and
their families. It authorizes the full 2.6 percent basic pay increase
for all servicemembers, as well as $40 million in Department of Defense
supplemental impact aid and an additional $10 million in impact aid for
military children with severe disabilities.
Additionally, the bill would apply the protections of title IX of the
Education Amendments of 1972 to all DODEA schools, closing a loophole
in coverage of these protections, and it would require a new
comprehensive sexual harassment policy for students in DODEA schools
that provides protections at least equal to those afford by title IX.
I remain concerned, however, that the military services do not
receive the full end-strength increases in this bill that they have
requested. I understand the desire for quality over quantity and agree
that quality is paramount, but I believe the services can achieve the
increases they requested without sacrificing service standards.
I look forward to hearing from the services as we move forward in the
legislative cycle about these provisions and whether they continue to
believe that they can achieve the requested increases without
sacrificing quality.
In the area of strategic systems, this bill continues to support the
modernization of all three legs of the triad: the B-21 bomber, the
ground-based strategic deterrent, and the Columbia-class submarine.
These are all major acquisition programs that will take decades to
field. Bipartisan support is essential for their success as we move
forward, and this bill continues that bipartisan support.
The B-21 will replace the B-52 bomber, which was fielded in 1962 and
will be required to operate well into the 2040s. The ground-based
strategic deterrent will replace the current Minuteman III, which was
fielded in the 1970s and uses electronics that, in many cases, predate
the earliest personal computers. Finally, the Columbia-class submarine
fleet will replace the current fleet of 14 Ohio-class submarines,
starting in 2027, due to the potential for full fatigue. By then, the
first Ohio-class submarine will be 46 years old--the oldest submarine
to have ever sailed in our Navy in its history.
Perhaps the biggest policy issue to be debated in the coming days is
the development and deployment of low-yield nuclear weapons. This bill
authorizes the Defense Department's request for funding for a new low-
yield submarine-launched ballistic missile. The request for this weapon
is in response to a revanchist Russia with a military doctrine of
``escalate to de-escalate,'' which means that if Russia were losing a
conventional war or had attained their objectives and wanted to prevent
counterattacks that would displace them, they would launch a low-yield
weapon and force us to choose between suspension of our military
efforts or deployment of high-yield nuclear weapons, heightening the
possibility of escalation and all-out nuclear war.
This low-yield system raises questions of policy that I believe
require more time to fully analyze and understand. I have spent
countless hours on this issue, and I am not alone. My colleagues in the
committee and many Members of the Senate have spent hours thinking
about the potential issues that could be caused by these proposals. I
am concerned that we have not fully grasped all of the complex
implications inherent to the deployment of such a system. Indeed, there
is an honest disagreement among experts in the field on this issue.
While General Hyten, the commander of Strategic Command and one of
our most prominent, effective, and distinguished officers, makes the
case for
[[Page S3010]]
this system, others, like former Secretary Ernie Moniz, who is also an
expert in the field, says the system is not necessary.
No matter where you fall on the issue, to develop this weapon is a
major change in U.S. policy, and I believe Congress needs to have a say
each step of the way.
Under a law passed on a bipartisan basis in 2003, which I crafted
with Senator John Warner, the administration could do research on a
low-yield weapon but could not develop, produce, or deploy it without
congressional authorization. This bill removes that restriction going
forward and virtually all congressional input on these weapons and
other potential weapons.
Given the policy ramifications of development and submarine
deployment of low-yield nuclear weapons--and, indeed, of any type of
nuclear weapon--I believe that Congress should be involved every step
of the way. So we will be offering an amendment to ensure congressional
oversight of this issue and to continue the process which we are using
today, where Congress will actually debate and vote and consider the
development and deployment of a new nuclear weapon.
Finally, this bill authorizes $639.2 billion in base funding for the
Department of Defense and the Department of Energy, and $68.5 billion
in funding for overseas contingencies operations. I am glad that the
bill remains within the caps set by the Bipartisan Budget Act, which we
passed in February. This will enable the Department to continue to
restore readiness and modernize our forces. However, I will remind my
colleagues that the budget deal only covers fiscal year 2018 and fiscal
year 2019. Sequestration and the original caps will be back next year
unless we again reach an agreement for both defense and nondefense
accounts.
I think all of us have acknowledged that our national security is
broader than simply the accounts in the Department of Defense. Customs
and Border Patrol, the Transportation Security Administration, the
Coast Guard, the State Department, and many other agencies also
contribute to our national security. The investments we propose in this
bill before us will be short-lived if we cannot provide sufficient
resources and stability in years to come for all of these critical
funds in our government.
Let me conclude by, once again, thanking Senator Inhofe and my
colleagues on the committee for working thoughtfully and on a
bipartisan basis to develop this important piece of legislation. I also
thank the staff who worked tirelessly on this bill throughout this year
and will continue to work tirelessly throughout many days ahead.
I look forward to a thoughtful debate on the issues that face our
Department of Defense and our national security.
Finally, I can think of no more appropriate title for this bill than
the John McCain National Defense Authorization Act, to symbolize the
leadership, the inspiration, and the direction that he is still
providing us and will provide us as we move forward.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. 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. 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 Bobby Kennedy
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was a senior in college at Georgetown
University when I received a chance opportunity that literally changed
my life. Paul Douglas, a great Senator from my home State of Illinois,
hired me on as an intern in his office here in the U.S. Senate. I was
just a kid from East Saint Louis, IL, the son of an immigrant mother,
who was suddenly surrounded by Senators debating some of the most
profound questions in our Nation's history.
I used to come to the Gallery of the Senate as a student and observe
the proceedings of the Senate, never dreaming that there would be a day
when I would actually stand on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I couldn't
believe my good fortune as a visitor to watch people like Mike
Mansfield, Everett Dirksen from my State, Paul Douglas from Illinois,
William Fulbright, Margaret Chase Smith, and so many others come to the
floor and speak in debate.
I remember sitting right there as a college student and watching.
Through the door came Bobby Kennedy, and not far behind was his brother
Ted Kennedy, both of them serving in the U.S. Senate in those days. It
was an important occasion, I remember, on this one day because Bobby
Kennedy was about to give a speech on Vietnam. His wife and Ted
Kennedy's wife were seated in the Gallery just above them. I was just
over here, I am sure with my mouth wide open, saying: I can't believe
this moment that I am here to witness.
I remember the moment today because today is the 50th anniversary of
the day an assassin's bullet ended Bobby Kennedy's too-short life.
For millions who remember him and many millions more who weren't even
born in 1968, the death of Robert Kennedy remains a painful and
haunting loss. What we miss is not simply the man; we miss his
intelligence and wit, his compassion, his fierce commitment to justice
and democracy, and his deep faith that Americans could come together to
overcome difficult times and make our Nation stronger and better.
Just 2 months--2 months--before Bobby Kennedy was murdered, America
lost another apostle of peace and justice. The evening that Dr. Martin
Luther King was murdered, Bobby Kennedy was in Indianapolis, IN, to
give a speech. Breaking the news of Dr. King's death to a stunned
crowd, Bobby Kennedy begged his listeners to not resort to violence. He
said:
We have to make an effort in the United States, we have to
make an effort to understand, to go beyond these rather
difficult times. What we need in the United States is not
division; what we need in the United States is not hatred;
what we need in the United States is not violence or
lawlessness; but love and wisdom and compassion toward one
another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still
suffer within our country, whether they be white or they be
black.
Listening to his words, one can hear echoes of President Lincoln's
first inaugural address when he told a young nation on the knife's edge
of civil war that ``we are not enemies, but friends'' and looked
forward to a time when we would be guided by, in Lincoln's words, ``the
better angels of our nature.''
Bobby Kennedy understood that America is great when we are guided by
those better angels, not by fear.
As America's Attorney General in the early 1960s, Bobby Kennedy wrote
a short book--only about 100 pages--entitled ``The Pursuit of
Justice.'' It includes a short chapter entitled ``Extremism, Left and
Right.'' I would like to read a short passage from it, the words of
Robert Francis Kennedy--not as history but as hope and a reminder that
we have the ability, each of us, to choose to overcome what divides us.
Here is what he wrote:
There have always and everywhere been those, throughout our
history, and particularly in times of crisis, who have
preached intolerance, who have sought to escape reality and
responsibility with a slogan or a scapegoat.
Bobby Kennedy wrote:
What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists
is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant.
The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what
they say about their opponents. The intolerant man . . .
cannot trust democracy. . . . [H]e condemns the motives, the
morals or the patriotism of all who disagree. . . . [H]e
spreads selfish slogans and false fears.
The answers to these voices, Bobby Kennedy tells us, ``cannot come
merely from government, no matter how conscientious or judicious. The
answer must come from within American democracy. It must come from an
informed national consensus which can recognize futile fervor and
simple solutions for what they are, and reject them quickly.
Ultimately, America's answer to the intolerant man is diversity.''
On this sad anniversary, the 50th anniversary of the death of Robert
Kennedy, we would do well to listen to his words and heed the better
angels of our nature here in the United States. It is our true source
of American greatness.
NATO
Mr. President, I rise today to bring attention to the troubling
erosion of our strongest and most cherished
[[Page S3011]]
transatlantic alliance, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Over the years, I have visited some of our key NATO and European
allies, including Lithuania and Poland, as well as those in the
frontlines of Russian military invasions. What is the constant theme
that is shared in these visits? It is the importance of our alliance,
our friendship, our common purpose, the importance of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization. The importance of democratic Western
values and international norms and institutions are embodied in this
alliance.
In 1948, a war-weary United States, Canada, and Europe decided to
face the new threat from an expansionist Soviet Union. A year later, we
banded together to create a collective shield against aggression so
that governments could concentrate on achieving fuller, better
existence for everyone. Ever since the creation of NATO, it has been
essential to the national security of the United States and a vital
component of the U.S.-led international order. NATO has made the world
safer and more prosperous.
Underpinning the NATO treaty is a collective defense guarantee that
essentially says the following: An armed attack against one of us is an
attack against all of us.
There has only been one time in the history of NATO that this has
been invoked. Do you know what it was? It was less than 24 hours after
the terrorist attacks against the United States of America on September
11, 2001. When that happened, our allies and NATO immediately came to
our defense. They fought beside us, stood beside us. They pledged to be
there when we needed them. They have been there with our U.S. military
forces in Afghanistan since 2001 to stop the spread of terrorism. Many
of these NATO allies have paid the ultimate price, and many more have
come home injured. They did it without question because it is in
service to the collective defense guarantee of the NATO alliance.
The picture today is dramatically different. In the face of Russian
aggression today, instead of fortifying our alliance and coming
together in common cause, I am sorry to report that this Trump
administration belittles the promise and commitment of NATO.
The President's lack of an appreciation for history, for this
critical and stabilizing alliance, is alarming. In the process, this
President has caused the world to lose faith in institutions and
policies that have kept us safe for 70 years. In the process, the
President has also shaken the confidence of our allies in our country,
in our ability to lead, and in our ability to solve international
problems in a meaningful and cooperative way with our friends and
allies.
How has this administration achieved this? By repeatedly calling NATO
obsolete during his political campaign; by failing to publicly commit
to honor the collective defense guarantee at the first NATO summit; by
threatening not to defend the Baltic NATO members--countries directly
in Russia's crosshairs; and by thumbing his nose at our closest allies
when he recklessly withdrew from the Paris climate agreement and the
Iran nuclear deal.
The United States of America is the only Nation in the world that is
not a signatory to the Paris climate agreement. Every other nation on
Earth acknowledges that we are facing environmental challenges that
could destroy and damage the world that we leave to our children, but
this President--this President--withdrew the United States from that
agreement. And just days ago, he stepped away from the Iran nuclear
deal, an agreement reached under the previous administration--which I
know makes it unacceptable to this President--an agreement reached by
China, Russia, the United States, Germany, France, the United Kingdom,
and the European Union. To do what? To stop the Iranians from
developing nuclear weapons. President Trump stepped away from that
agreement. The world is not safer because of that decision.
To throw salt on the wound, the President is now in a trade war with
some of these very same NATO allies, and he has threatened to levy
sanctions against these same NATO allies if they do any business with
Iran.
Defying all logic and American security interests, despite all of the
things I have just said, the President looks the other way when it
comes to Russia. Despite Russia's interference in our election--a
conclusion reached by every intelligence agency in the United States--
despite repeated violations of international treaties and agreements;
despite cyber attacks against the United States and Europe, especially
the Baltics; despite the occupation of sovereign territory in Ukraine,
Georgia, and Moldova, President Trump has been virtually silent on
Russia's aggression.
Tragically, this silence has not gone unnoticed by our closest
international partners. The Pew Research Center did a poll that shows
that our allies' trust in American leadership is plummeting. In 2017,
only 11 percent of those who live in Germany had confidence in
President Trump, and in Great Britain, only 22 percent. This is
compared to 86 and 79 percent in those countries under President Obama.
Gallup also did a poll. After 2 years of this Presidency, approval of
American leadership is at a new low of 30 percent, with the biggest
drops in approval coming from those nations that have stood by us in
alliance for seven decades.
The devastating message is clear: At a time when Russia is
challenging NATO in new and more aggressive ways, our NATO allies are
losing faith in America. Donald Tusk, the European Council President,
went so far as to publicly say that the European Union is no longer
under any illusions that the United States is a trustworthy friend.
I never expected the greatest military alliance in the world to be
plagued by such uncertainty. I certainly didn't expect that uncertainty
to arise as a result of our President.
Because I and many of my colleagues are so alarmed by this state of
affairs, Senators Kaine, Cardin, Van Hollen, Feinstein, Brown, and
Merkley have joined me to introduce a resolution to reaffirm our
commitment to NATO, just in time for the NATO summit in July. I plead
with my Republican colleagues to join us in making this a bipartisan
commitment to the future of NATO. This resolution reaffirms what should
be obvious and urges President Trump to do the same in committing to
this transatlantic alliance and to stand resolute against Russian
aggression.
We know hostile nations will seek to exploit the strained
relationship between NATO and the United States, and we can't allow
this to happen. If our President won't do it, then Congress must. We
need to act to reassure that America can still be trusted to stand for
the values that inspired the creation of NATO and to stand by our
allies and friends who share our goal for a peaceful world.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
Project Safe Neighborhoods Authorization Bill
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to begin my remarks by commending
our colleagues in the House for taking up a bill later today that I
introduced with the junior Senator from Michigan, Mr. Peters, and
Congresswoman Comstock over in the House of Representatives.
We passed this bill unanimously in the Senate in May. I know people
believe that nothing happens in a bipartisan way around here and that
certainly if it does happen, we are sharply divided somehow, but this
bill passed unanimously, defying that suspicion or that intuition. Once
the House passes it, it will be headed to the President's desk for his
signature and will become the law of the land.
This bill authorizes a program called Project Safe Neighborhoods,
which is a nationwide partnership between Federal, State, and local law
enforcement authorities and prosecutors focused on reducing crime and
improving public safety through stronger community partnerships and
targeting the most serious criminal organizations and repeat offenders.
Since its inception in 2001, Project Safe Neighborhoods has proved to
reduce violent crime in cities with high participation rates, including
double-digit reductions in firearms crimes and homicides. Let me say
that again. Since 2001, where it has been used, those jurisdictions and
those communities have seen double-digit reductions in firearms crimes
and homicides.
[[Page S3012]]
One of the most important elements of the program is a focus on
criminal organizations. When Federal, State, and local law enforcement
work together to focus on those who control criminal networks, we can
defeat them outright. This will also bolster other efforts we are
undertaking as the Federal Government to address gun violence and
school safety.
By the way, I commend Attorney General Sessions for ramping up
prosecutions of gun-related crimes, especially the so-called lie-and-
buy incidents, where people lie about or otherwise hide their criminal
background in order to obtain firearms illegally.
Now we have taken a big step to improve the criminal background check
system used when somebody enters a sporting goods store or gun shop to
buy a firearm. If you are a convicted felon, if you have been convicted
of domestic violence, if you have been dishonorably discharged from the
military, you cannot, under current law, purchase a firearm or possess
a firearm legally. But what has happened--and we saw this in Sutherland
Springs because of the broken background check system--often the
derogatory or disqualifying information is not uploaded into the
background check system, so people enter these sporting goods stores
and purchase a firearm by lying, even though they are already
disqualified under Federal law. We have taken a big step here in
Congress on a bipartisan basis to shut that down. It is going to take
some time to fix that system, so it is important in the interim,
certainly, at least, to have the Department of Justice focus on those
who lie and buy firearms illegally.
Under Attorney General Sessions, enforcement of our existing gun laws
has been dramatically improved. There was a 15-percent increase in all
Federal gun prosecutions last year. People like me believe we ought to
focus on the person, on the individual, and not on the instrumentality
or the tool, because obviously law-abiding citizens are not a threat to
public safety and certainly don't go out and commit crimes. But by
focusing on criminals and people who are not legally qualified to
purchase a firearm in the first place or possess one under current law,
we can help improve public safety and lower the crime rate.
What is happening under Attorney General Sessions and this
administration is in great contrast to what we saw under Eric Holder,
who often failed to enforce existing gun laws adequately against
violent criminals. Those who illegally possess or purchase firearms
must be held accountable, and I am glad to see the Congress and
administration working together to ensure that happens.
The Project Safe Neighborhoods Authorization Act is another important
piece of our bipartisan commitment to reduce violent crime by focusing
on the most serious offenders and improving law enforcement relations
with the communities they serve. It is important that Federal, State,
and local law enforcement agencies work together in close coordination
because then we can solve the most complex challenges that drive
violent crime and make our communities safer. The Project Safe
Neighborhoods Authorization Act is a significant step in that
direction.
Student Visa Program
On another topic, Mr. President, this afternoon, I will be chairing a
Judiciary subcommittee hearing titled ``Student Visa Integrity:
Protecting Educational Opportunity and National Security.''
We are blessed in America with a world-class higher education and
university system. Everybody wants to come to America to go to college
or graduate school, and that is a good thing, by and large. The point
of today's hearing, though, is to raise awareness about a very real
issue that we must be diligently aware of and to hear from Federal
agencies responsible for our national security, visa policy, and the
vetting of foreign nationals because we know our open society here in
America is also exploited by our adversaries for their own benefit and
to undermine our national security at home.
We hope to shed light on policies and procedures that are in place or
should be in place to address what has become a growing source of
concern. That issue primarily but not solely relates to China's
aggressive activity to surpass the United States on all fronts--
militarily, economically, and technologically--and use whatever means
necessary--legal or not, open or secret--to achieve their goals.
The interesting thing about China is they have advertised their
plans. They are there for the world to see, and all we need to do is
read what they have said they intend to do. Through its ``Made in China
2025'' strategy, China is accelerating its efforts to acquire U.S.
intellectual property and sensitive research, and that is where our
universities come in. That is where most of the important research
takes place.
This past February, FBI Director Wray testified before the Senate
Intelligence Committee about the security risks posed by certain
foreign students, visiting scientists, and scholars at America's
colleges and universities. Director Wray's remarks were brief, and
because of the sensitive and classified nature of the issue, he could
not provide the full context and breadth of the concerns in an open
setting, but what he has said publicly is alarming.
He said that the FBI is ``watching warily.'' He said that ``naivete''
was exacerbating the problem. I think that by ``naivete,'' he meant a
lack of public awareness about the problem and thus a lack of vigilance
on the part of our university systems and the public generally--that is
what he was referring to as ``naivete''--and it is hurting our national
security.
He also said that the Chinese Government has been very aggressive
about planting spies--foreign intelligence officers--on our university
campuses and our research facilities in order to accomplish its goals.
That is not the only way they are doing it, but that is a significant
way they are trying to achieve the goals they set in ``Made in China
2025,'' enhancing their national security and robbing us of our
technological advantage. Particularly when it comes to military-use
technology, they are all in. It is an all-of-government approach.
As I said, we are fortunate to have the top universities in the
world, and they are known for their open research and development
environment, which fosters collaboration and innovation across a broad
array of industry sectors and academic disciplines. That is a good
thing, but what is happening now, as Director Wray said, is that
foreign actors are taking advantage of that environment--again, of our
vulnerability as an open environment--and they are using it to study,
learn, and acquire sensitive information, to the detriment of U.S.
national security.
This is not an isolated problem. Director Wray said the Bureau is
monitoring universities from virtually all of its 56 field offices
across the Nation, not just in major cities. So it is not just New
York, San Francisco, Chicago, Los Angeles, Dallas, or Houston; it is
all across the country.
Approximately 350,000 Chinese students are enrolled at U.S.
universities--350,000. That is 35 percent of all foreign students in
the United States. As those numbers suggest, there is ample opportunity
for mischief.
Most--and I want to emphasize the word ``most''--most students and
visiting scholars come for legitimate reasons, and we welcome them. We
should welcome them. They come here to learn, share our culture, and
contribute their talents to the United States. I think our educational
system here in America is one of the greatest elements of our soft
power, where we invite foreign students to come to study in our
colleges and universities and learn more about who we are and about our
values and to take those back home and become natural allies with us in
making the world a better and safer place. But it is important to note
that the Chinese Communist Party, which dominates the Government in
China, has the capacity to influence all students from that country who
come here and the academics.
I want to emphasize that this is not about restricting student visas.
Students from across the world are welcome to come and study at our
colleges and universities, and I encourage all of them to explore
opportunities for them to do so. It is good for them, and it is good
for us. What the hearing is about and what we should all be concerned
about are security risks and the theft of intellectual property at our
universities.
Again, as the FBI Director said, we shouldn't be naive. This theft is
occurring, it is well documented, and we
[[Page S3013]]
have to take the necessary preventive measures to ensure that it
doesn't continue to occur.
While I have highlighted China's activities, these concerns are
certainly not limited to one country. There are other countries,
including state sponsors of terrorism, like Iran, that are actively
working to steal U.S. technology, bypass expensive U.S. research and
development, and exploit the student visa program to gain information
that will benefit their countries. It seems like such a logical target
for them. If they have no regard for the rule of law, if they can steal
technology that we have spent years and billions of dollars to develop
and acquire and implement, it is a huge economic advantage for them,
and it helps catapult their national security apparatus in ways that
eventually will overcome our national security structure itself.
As one example, just this last March, the Department of Justice
indicted 9 Iranian hackers who had stolen more than 31 terabytes of
information, totaling $3 billion in intellectual property, from more
than 300 American and foreign universities. While I have said that
China is the biggest, most obvious culprit, there are others, as well,
and we hope to discuss all of them in our hearing.
Finally, let me say that our colleges and universities, again, have
become a mecca for foreign nationals because of the high-quality
education and the academic and cultural freedoms that exist in America.
In order to preserve those crown jewels, we have to make sure that
American research is protected and that the intellectual property
developed in our colleges and universities is protected.
Today's hearing in the Judiciary Committee about the student visa
program is about protecting the educational atmosphere we have worked
generations to build in this country. Again, our higher education
system is the envy of the world. That is why students come here. They
flock here, as many as can, in order to study at our colleges and
universities. Again, this is a good thing. We need to hear how U.S.
institutions and higher education can actively protect their most
sensitive areas from potential intrusion from foreign states with less
than honorable purposes and intent.
In addition to the testimony we are going to hear from Federal
agencies this afternoon at the hearing, we are going to hear from Texas
A&M University, which has been recognized for its excellence in
providing security for that research and intellectual property, which
are targets for foreign actors. We are going to hear from NAFSA, the
Association of International Educators, about the value and talent
foreign nationals bring to the U.S. national education system. As these
panelists will suggest, this is a complex problem. No one is suggesting
that it is not. There are a lot of different angles to it, and we need
to do our best to learn and listen from all sides and make good policy
decisions about what we should do in response to this threat.
I look forward to learning about how we can continue to open our
doors to foreign students and, at the same time, protect ourselves from
espionage and outright theft, which ultimately makes our country less
safe.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mrs. Hyde-Smith). The Senator from Florida.
Facebook
Mr. NELSON. Madam President, it is interesting that the majority whip
just spoke about China, and this Senator wants to talk about Facebook
and some of the things that are threatening national security and our
personal privacy.
I rise to speak about the recent press reports on Facebook and how
the social media giant partnered with at least 60 mobile device
manufacturers and shared user information with the likes of Apple,
Amazon, BlackBerry, Microsoft, and Samsung. Just today, on the subject
of China, the New York Times is reporting that Facebook also partnered
with four Chinese electronic manufacturers, including Huawei, which is
known to have close ties with the Chinese Government and may pose a
national security threat to the United States. According to the Times,
these companies had access to vast amounts of Facebook's user data,
including the information of friends who may not have provided proper
consent to access and share their personal and their personally
identifiable information.
We don't know all of the facts yet, but it is clear that what
Facebook claims and what the New York Times is reporting doesn't end up
squaring up. As a result, the chairman of the Commerce Committee,
Senator Thune, and I as ranking member wrote a letter to Mark
Zuckerberg, asking that he answer a number of questions about the New
York Times' reporting. Specifically, Senator Thune and I want to know
exactly who these business partners are and what the nature of these
agreements is. We want to know what safeguards are in place and whether
Facebook conducted adequate oversight to protect user or customer
information from unauthorized use and storage. We also asked whether
Facebook users and the Federal Trade Commission were aware of these
business agreements.
Currently, Facebook is operating under a 2011 consent order as part
of a settlement with the FTC, and it is not clear whether these data-
sharing agreements are in violation of that order. The bottom line is
that these revelations are yet another example of questionable business
practices by Facebook that could undermine basic consumer privacy.
Remember, less than 2 months ago, Mr. Zuckerberg appeared in front of
our committee in a joint committee hearing with the Judiciary Committee
to answer questions in the face of the Cambridge Analytica fiasco. At
that hearing, Mr. Zuckerberg apologized for his company's negligence
and pledged to do better. He also asserted that consumers own their
personal information and control how it can be seen and used.
I want to repeat what I just said. Zuckerberg also asserted that
consumers--their users--own their personal information and control how
it can be seen and used. That is what Zuckerberg said in our committee
hearing.
The reporting in the New York Times suggests that is not accurate.
While Mr. Zuckerberg asserted that app developers were prohibited from
collecting friends' information in 2014, he failed to mention that
device manufacturers were still able to access the information. He
never revealed these data-sharing agreements in our committee meeting,
the hearing in April of this year.
As a result, it is hard to know what is true anymore. Now we learn
that Facebook gave Chinese companies believed to be national security
risks access to user data. What in the world is next, and what in the
world is going to protect Americans' personally identifiable, private
information?
Facebook is the most popular social media platform in the world with
over 2 billion users, and in the United States, there are over 200
million users. Those users interact with each other and post sensitive,
personal information. The company has a unique responsibility to its
users to be vigilant caretakers of personally identifiable information.
They also have a responsibility to be transparent.
I look forward to Mr. Zuckerberg's response to the letter that
Senator Thune and I sent to him just recently. It is high time that
Congress act to provide all American consumers with the basic privacy
protections they expect and deserve in order to be protected, and they
are counting on us to do that.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Missouri.
Economic Growth and Nominations
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I wish to talk about the economy today,
something that most of us are talking about when we are home, and for
good reason. Yesterday the Labor Department announced that our economy
hit a milestone that we never hit before in the time that we have been
measuring
[[Page S3014]]
these two things at the same time. There are now more jobs available in
the United States than there are job seekers.
When I was in Missouri last week, we did a number of events all over
the State. At that time, I was confident that in the 12 States in the
middle of the country, there were more jobs than people looking for
jobs. That was news.
But even bigger news is the news that was announced yesterday, that
there are 6.7 million job openings and there aren't 6.7 million people
on unemployment. In fact, the unemployment rate is 3.8 percent. It
matches the lowest number we have seen in 50 years. The last time
numbers were this low, in fact, was during the Vietnam war, when many
young men were being drafted into the military. That was the last time
we had an unemployment rate this low.
Everybody understands--and they should understand--that the 6.7
million jobs don't necessarily have 6.7 million people ready for
exactly the jobs that are out there. That should encourage us, among
other things, to be thinking about what we need to be doing to make
sure that people are either prepared for jobs or they have the skills
to allow them quickly to become prepared for the jobs that are
available. Two-thirds of Americans say it is a good time to find a job.
That is 25 percent more than in the last administration who think it is
a good time to find work.
Working with the President, the Senate and the House have done what
we could to fuel the economy. The House and Senate both have rolled
back regulations that didn't meet the commonsense test and passed the
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The President of the United States kept telling
us: Don't call this tax reform. Who knows what that means or where it
might wind up. What we want to do here is to cut people's taxes,
increase their take-home pay, and do things that increase jobs.
In the 10 cities I was in last week, I think I saw virtually every
reporter in the State. At least every reporting agency had somebody at
those events. We had roundtables with employers. We had meetings with
people who were able to buy a house that they couldn't buy otherwise.
We had people who really appreciated the extra $500 a year or the extra
$152 a month or the extra $200 a month that they were seeing in their
family budget, which last year would have been sent to Washington, DC.
I said many times during that tax cut debate that there are two ways
to increase people's pay. One is to take less money out of it. We said
that if we passed that bill, 9 out of 10 people who paid taxes last
year would pay fewer taxes this year. And the second way we increase
people's take-home pay is to give them a better job, to start with.
That is what happens in a growing economy.
One of the things I thought was most surprising was how many
employers stepped up, and in how many different ways, to say: We
appreciate this economy and will reward our workforce like we, frankly,
didn't know we could afford to do and knew we didn't have to do in a
more stagnant economy in the past. Some companies gave bonuses. Some
companies gave other benefits. There were several companies that
increased their minimum level of pay, whatever that was.
One major national retailer said they were going to increase their
minimum wage to $11. Over the next specific number of months, they were
going to increase that $11 minimum to a $14 minimum--not because the
government told them they had to do that, but they wanted to be sure
that in a growing economy they kept their employees.
According to a recent National Federation of Independent Business
survey, 76 percent of small business owners believe the current
business climate is headed in the right direction.
According to the National Association of Manufacturers, 86 percent of
those manufacturers plan to increase investments thanks to tax reform,
77 percent say they are planning to increase hiring, and 72 percent
said they plan to increase wages for their employees. That is the kind
of thing that happens in a growing economy.
I was at Gray Manufacturing in St. Joseph, MI, last week. The
president of that company, Stet Schanze, said his company is among
those feeling optimistic about the future. They are trying right now to
find the 20 workers they need to fill the 20 jobs they have.
In my hometown of Springfield, Mary Beth Hartman, the president of a
local construction company, said she had been able not only to hand out
employee bonuses but to buy new equipment. They could buy the new
trucks they had been waiting for some time to buy until they were sure
they moved from a time when you have to take what money you have and
repair something to where you really can make the kind of long-term
investment that, frankly, the tax bill encourages you to do.
Also, if your business is doing as well as you did last year, you
have more money than you had last year. You can take some of that money
off the table and buy the equipment and replace the equipment that you
had been hoping to do for a long time.
Jamie Burger, the Scott County Presiding Commissioner, told me:
Everywhere we go, hiring signs are up. That is new in our State. I
think it is true all over the country. At least a million new jobs have
been created since the Tax Code changes passed. I will be reminded by
the President if I don't say it: It wasn't the Tax Code changes. It was
the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that the Congress and the President worked
together to create.
I met local officials and business owners who were located in
opportunity zones. This is an idea that is in the tax bill. Senator
Scott and others were really thinking about what we can do to encourage
people to put money in those communities that aren't doing as well as
others around them. So you take economically distressed areas and allow
a new kind of investment to occur in those census areas. You take your
capital gains profits, which you very likely made somewhere else, and
you put them in real estate or in a business or you invest them in some
other way in one of the opportunity zones. We have 161 in our State.
When I was with Mayor Hark of Hannibal and local officials in
Hannibal, they were certainly talking about what to do there in Kansas
City. I was with the electric company, Kansas City Power and Light.
They actually have based a new local access point in one of those
opportunity zones near the historic 18th and Vine area, the jazz area
in Kansas City. They were talking about that particular opportunity to
talk about what the Tax Code changes have done and what the tax cuts
bill has done. They are in the process of reducing electric bills for
their customers by $100 billion because that is how many fewer tax
dollars they are going to send to Washington than they did last year.
By the way, every one of those tax dollars gets passed along to a rate
payer, just like every one of those tax savings also gets passed along
to a rate payer.
The economy is moving again. The tsunami of redtape that we saw in
the last few years, piling well over $100 billion of extra costs going
to the government, is gone. By their own estimates, that number was up
to $700 billion, when you project that number into the 10-year future.
That is $700 billion of redtape.
When the President took office, he was able to eliminate some things
that hadn't gotten done yet. Congress was able to overturn 16 rules
that had significant compliance cost savings under the Congressional
Review Act. It had been used exactly one time in the history of the law
until this Congress and this President were able to reverse rules that
were slowing the economy down, like the clean power rule, which would
have doubled utility bills in Missouri in a decade or so. The waters of
the United States rule would have put the EPA in charge of things they
shouldn't be in charge of. By the way, neither of those rules have been
allowed to go into effect--not because of the calendar but because of
the courts. In both cases, the courts said to the past administration:
You can't do that.
Instead of continuing to appeal the ``you can't do that'' decision by
courts, the Trump administration reversed those policies. We still have
lots of protections, but we don't have protections beyond what the
government is legally allowed to do.
By the way, those protections were just so-called protections. They
definitely would have slowed the economy
[[Page S3015]]
down. Whether they would have definitely added much to either our water
or our power policies is a big debate.
Keeping regulations where they need to be and working to confirm
well-qualified nominees to both the courts and the administration are
really important.
We are going to be here in August this year. I wouldn't want to fall
into the trap of suggesting that Congress isn't taking a vacation in
August. What Congress isn't doing in August--at least the Senate is not
able to do--is to be home doing the work we need to do at home. Part of
the job as a Member of the House and Member of the Senate is to be
talking to people where they work, talking to people they work for,
seeing those problems firsthand, and being part of that discussion
going on where they live.
We are not doing that this August. Our leader said we are going to be
here. Part of it is because the other side has just taken so much time
to make it difficult for the President to get his team in place. We
never had anything like this happen before in the history of the
country for judges and U.S. attorneys to be confirmed. Senate Democrats
have forced 100 cloture votes.
What is a cloture vote? A cloture vote, really, is a demand that you
have up to 30 hours of debate before someone is confirmed. Yesterday we
had this long time set aside for debate. They insisted on it. There
was, not so shockingly, no debate. The vote was almost unanimous, after
hours of not being able to do anything but have the floor open for
debate for someone who there was no debate about.
That has happened 100 times in this Congress and Presidency. In the
last 15 months, that has happened 100 times. In the previous six
administrations, in the first full 2 years of all six of them combined,
that happened 24 times. So we have gone from an average of 4 times per
Presidency for the last six Presidencies to 100 times for this
Presidency. That is not acceptable.
The long-term solution to that, by the way, is not to be here in
August. The long-term solution is to change that rule. That rule is
being abused. It needs to be changed. The committee chair has voted
that rules change out of the committee. When my colleagues get tired of
the rules being abused, that is when we will be able to change the
rules.
At the same time, we confirmed a lot of judges. As a matter of fact,
18 percent--one out of eight--of all Federal court of appeals judges
have been nominated by President Trump and confirmed by the Senate.
Our friends on the other side say: Well, jeez, how can you be
bragging about the President being able to get all of those judges
confirmed and complaining about how much time it took? They know and I
know and people watching the Senate know that we managed to get those
judges confirmed, but the loss--and it was a devastating loss--was the
ability to get on with other legislative work. We should be debating
the appropriations bills one bill at a time. We ought to have an
infrastructure bill on the floor. Today we should be debating the
Defense Authorization Act.
We have a lot of work to do, and our friends on the other side of the
aisle know that every hour they force to be taken for something else--
and certainly a lifetime judicial appointment is important, but every
hour they force to be needlessly taken for that is an hour that the
Senate can't get to anything else. We are going to put a lot of those
hours back on the table in August, and we are going to continue to do
that work and hopefully do the work publicly and visibly and in a way
where every Member is allowed to offer every amendment they want to, to
debate how we spend people's money, to debate how we defend the
country, and to debate how we try to do things that encourage us to be
more competitive. We have a full agenda ahead of us. We are going to be
here for the rest of the year working on that agenda. I look forward to
that.
Hopefully the economic news will continue. Even the New York Times--a
group that has run out of words to use to praise the administration or
the Congress--said last week that they had run out of words to talk
about how good the job numbers were. When the New York Times runs out
of words to talk about how good the economy is, the economy must be
really good. It can be better. It needs to be better. We need to
continue to see people not just with more take-home pay, but now our
goal should be more take-home pay because they have better jobs, and
people have better jobs in a stronger economy. We are headed in that
direction. Let's be sure that we continue to head there.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, last week I traveled all around my home
State of Wyoming, and many Senators have done the same in their home
States over the last week. I will tell my colleagues that the people I
talked with had a great sense of optimism, confidence, and positiveness
in terms of how things were going with their lives. People were feeling
very positive about the American economy, about their own lives, and of
course about their future.
We just saw new numbers on Friday showing that the American economy
has created more than 1 million new jobs since we passed the Tax Relief
and Jobs Act in December. Since President Trump was elected, we have
actually gotten more than 3 million more Americans working.
Unemployment is now at 3.8 percent, and that matches the lowest rate
in 50 years. Even the New York Times ran a headline saying: ``We Ran
Out of Words to Describe How Good the Jobs Numbers Are.''
Think about that, the New York Times: ``We Ran Out of Words to
Describe How Good the Jobs Numbers Are.''
Every month we have been adding thousands of new jobs in
construction, in manufacturing, in healthcare, and mining. We have had
strong and steady growth, and the American people and American families
are benefiting in every part of the country. It is not just that people
are getting jobs; it is that the jobs are paying better as well.
According to the most recent survey by the National Federation of
Independent Business, there were a record number of small companies
raising their wages last month--a record number raising wages. Average
wages are up by 2.7 percent over the last year. Employers can pay more
because business is booming. They need more workers.
On Tuesday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said there are now 6.7
million job openings across the country. That is an alltime high. The
Labor Department says that for the first time ever, there are actually
more job openings than there are unemployed people who are looking for
work.
It is an incredible situation. People look around them and see all of
the hiring that is going on and all of the pay raises; it just makes
people confident because they see it at home in their communities. It
is not just something they read in the newspaper. It is not just
something they see on TV. It is what they see at home in their
communities in their own lives and in their own paychecks.
Consumer confidence is at an 18-year high. People know things are
going well. They know they have more money in their pockets, and they
know the American economy is thriving.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta says they are at a pace for the
economy to grow over 4 percent during the second quarter of this year.
Remember that Democrats have been saying there was no way we could
even get to 3 percent. Now the Federal Reserve of Atlanta is saying
over 4 percent, and they say we are actually heading to close to 5. It
is excellent news, and it is not an accident. That is the thing, it is
not an accident. It is happening because of the policies Republicans
are implementing in Congress and in the White House. It is a
partnership.
President Trump has been in office for 500 days, and it has been an
incredibly productive time. He has been wiping burdensome and
unnecessary regulations off the books. He has been making it easier for
people to do their jobs, easier to live their lives.
[[Page S3016]]
President Trump issued an order cutting government redtape. He said
for every significant new rule an agency wanted to write, it had to get
rid of two rules. For every one new rule, get rid of two.
The result has been even better than expected. So far, in this fiscal
year, agencies have cut 38 major regulations of the kind the President
has been talking about. At the same time, they have only written five
new regulations that are major regulations.
President Trump said he would cut two for every one new regulation,
but what we really see is that the number is much closer to eight
regulations cut for every new one.
Republicans in Congress have done the same. We have been cutting
redtape. We have been loosening Washington's stranglehold on the
economy, and we can see it in the economy every day. We have been
cutting the mandates and the restrictions that hold back growth. We
have cut the taxes people pay.
The tax relief law we passed in December was the biggest tax cut in
36 years. It gave people an immediate boost in their take-home pay.
Millions of Americans also got bonuses and raises because of the law.
It has been an enormous boost for the overall economy. We have a
strong, healthy, and growing economy.
It is interesting because every Democrat in the Senate voted against
the tax cut--every one of them. In fact, Nancy Pelosi, the former
Speaker of the House, said that if she had it her way, Democrats would
get rid of the tax relief law and actually raise taxes again.
The American people know that would be a disaster. Democrats' ideas
for higher taxes and lower take-home pay for families and more
government regulation--which is what the Democrats are proposing--would
do incredible damage to our economy and to our country.
Democrats tried their ideas when they were in charge, and they have
failed. We had slow economic growth. We had stagnant wages. Democrats
tried to say this was the new normal for America. The American people
knew that could not be the new normal; it wasn't good enough. The
American people will not tolerate it, and they voted to change it.
People said they wanted Republican ideas and Republican policies. Now
they are seeing the results, and they are living with the benefits.
People are seeing jobs numbers that are so good they have run out of
words. As the headline says: We have run out of words to describe how
good the jobs numbers are.
It has been 500 days, and we are just getting started. What we need
to do now is keep looking for ways to create a growing economy, a
strong economy, a healthy economy, with larger paychecks and more
prosperity right here at home for American families.
One place we can do this is in the area of infrastructure. We can
start with water infrastructure. These are the systems that deliver
drinking water and treat wastewater. They provide water for our crops
and cattle and small businesses. They are used to ship American-made
goods from the heartland to the coasts and around the world. They keep
our homes safe from dangerous floodwaters. They store water for times
of drought.
These systems are vital to our country. They support America's
economic growth and American competitiveness. We need to build,
maintain, and upgrade them.
Over the past 50 years, we have gone from being a society that spends
much more on construction to one spending much more on consumption. As
a result, our bridges and our roads, dams, and waterways have suffered.
That is why I introduced the America's Water Infrastructure Act. It is
a bipartisan bill--something Republicans and Democrats agree we should
do. It is a way to grow the economy, to cut Washington's redtape, and
keep communities safe.
We are going to have a chance in the coming weeks to pass America's
Water Infrastructure Act. Then we are going to look for more ways and
things we can do to keep America growing and strong. That is what
Republicans in Congress are committed to doing.
What this President and this Congress have accomplished together has
truly been historic. We need to keep going. It is what the American
people expect from us, and it is actually what they deserve.
Thank you.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to bring two baskets of hemp products to the floor of the Senate.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Hemp Farming Act
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it was not very long ago when I was on the
floor of the Senate with the distinguished majority leader, Senator
McConnell, and the two of us were making the case for our bipartisan
bill to legalize hemp, which we are very much interested in having
included in the farm bill. I will talk a little bit more about our work
on that.
Our original sponsors were Senator Merkley and Senator Paul, and
since then we have added 28 additional Members of the U.S. Senate as
cosponsors.
What I am going to do this afternoon for just a few minutes is talk
about why it is so important that our bipartisan legislation, now
cosponsored by almost one-third of this body, get enacted and be
included as part of the farm bill.
It is Hemp History Week again, and that is why I am back on the
Senate floor to talk about the only schedule I controlled substance you
can sew into a T-shirt and wear through TSA.
Here, as we start, is the real head-scratcher: Products made with
hemp are perfectly legal, but growing industrial hemp is a crime. There
can't be many policies on the book that are more anti-farmer than that
one. So I have a bottom line, which I discussed with Majority Leader
McConnell recently on the floor of the Senate; that is, if you can buy
it at a supermarket in America, our farmers ought to be allowed to grow
it in America.
For me, this issue goes back to a trip my wife and I took to a
grocery store near our home in Southeast Portland. Nancy was pregnant
with our youngest daughter at the time, and we were always on the hunt
for healthy foods that would fill our cart. So we grabbed the fruits
and vegetables, and there, perched on one of the shelves, was a large
bag of hemp hearts. The packaging had really big, colorful text, and it
said that it was heart-healthy and protein-rich. But I knew the product
couldn't have been grown in the United States because there was a
Federal ban. So I looked at this product, and I turned to my wife and I
said: You know, hemp growers in places like Canada and China must be
laughing all the way to the bank. They are cashing in while our farmers
have their hands tied by the current hemp restrictions.
So here with me on the floor is one of our very capable young
staffers, Malcolm, from Southern Oregon. Malcolm is holding a variety
of products that are made with hemp, this schedule I substance that our
laws make out to be a perilous danger to the public.
For a few minutes, let's take a look at what Malcolm has. He has a
few schedule I snack bars. He has some schedule I hand soap. He is even
wearing a schedule I necktie. The point is, they are all perfectly
legal products that you will find on shelves in stores throughout the
Nation. But because the hemp had to be imported, none of it could be
considered fully American-made.
So, as I have with the majority leader on past occasions, I want to
make sure everyone understands a simple fact about hemp. Hemp is not a
drug, and treating it like one was wrong from the get-go. Smoking hemp
would be nothing but a waste of time, breath, and lighter fluid. It
defies common sense that our laws consider hemp to be dangerous and
addictive like crystal meth. Having one too many hemp granola bars
might give you a stomach ache, but you aren't going to land in the
hospital.
[[Page S3017]]
So hemp is not a drug. What it is, is a huge opportunity for American
farmers. That is why the original sponsors of this legislation--Senator
McConnell, Senator Merkley, Senator Paul, and I--introduced the Hemp
Farming Act of 2018. It is the latest version of a bill that I began
putting in front of this body in 2012.
Our bill would end hemp's days as a controlled substance, and it
would legalize its growth in America. What the bill does is clear the
way for farmers in Oregon, Kentucky, and literally from sea to shining
sea, it gives the green light to farmers across the land who are
clamoring for the growth that legalized industrial hemp would bring for
their farms and their communities.
Nearly 2 months after my colleagues and I introduced the Hemp Farming
Act, as I said, a very large delegation of Senators of both political
parties have signed on as cosponsors. Democratic Senators, Republican
Senators--we can have some pretty spirited disagreements around here,
but these are Senators who know a brainless, anti-farmer policy when
you see one.
There is a companion bill in the other body that has strong
bipartisan support as well. So we are going to keep at it, our
bipartisan coalition, in order to build support for this throughout the
days ahead.
Here in the Senate, Members are hard at work putting together a
bipartisan farm bill, and we are very pleased to see the leadership on
both the majority side and the minority side--Chairman Roberts and
Senator Stabenow--working very closely to put together a bipartisan
farm bill, which would be a perfect opportunity to move this forward.
I am constantly saying at home in Oregon--very supportive of
agriculture: Let's grow it in America. Let's add value to it in many
America, and let's ship it wherever we can in order to create jobs--
jobs that start on the farm.
We have momentum growing, and that is why Hemp History Week--this
time when I come to the floor and talk about this broad array of
products--is designed to get the facts out about growing hemp.
Before growing hemp was made illegal, hemp was among the predominant
American crops for generations. It was grown in the fields of Mount
Vernon. It was threaded into the ropes and sails of the first ships
made for the U.S. Navy. If hemp were easier to rhyme, it might even
have its own lyric in ``America the Beautiful,'' right alongside
``amber waves of grain.''
I believe it is long past time for Congress to throw out an anti-
farmer policy and legalize--by the way, both leaders of this body,
Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer, are cosponsors of this bill
because they understand that it defies common sense to be anti-farmer
in this way. Both leaders of this body share the view that it is time
to legalize the industrial growth of hemp.
This is just a modest number of products made of hemp. Products made
with hemp constitute a $1 billion market in this country.
If there is only one thing I have said today that people will
remember in all this, it ought to be that if you can buy it in a
grocery store in America, farmers ought to be able to grow it in
America. It is just that simple.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Work of the Senate
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, in the last 24 hours, Senator McConnell
announced that the Senate will still be in session in August. I don't
know of any Senator who loves being in Washington, DC, in August. Quite
frankly, it is a hot, humid, miserable place. I would much rather be in
Oklahoma with other folks whom I serve, getting to spend some time
there.
The Senate is in session 11 months of the year. The only month we are
not in session traditionally is August. But we have a problem. The work
is not getting done in the Senate. If the options are to be in
Washington, DC, and get the work done or to be back in my State and see
the folks in my State but knowing that the legislative work is undone,
then the decision should be to get the work done.
Senator McConnell announced yesterday that in August we will be here.
We have two big issues as the reason we should be here in August to get
some things done. One is the nominations issue. This is an issue that
has, quite frankly, picked up a lot of speed this year. Last year in
our nominations process, we had a record slow process to try to get
nominations through. This year, more nominations have gotten through.
Let me give an example of what we are up against. In the past 6
Presidents, there have been a total of 25 cloture votes for nominations
in the first 2 years of the Presidency--25 total, all 6 combined. Right
now, President Trump is at 100 cloture votes so far for his
nominations.
You may say, what is the big deal about that? Each one of those
basically consumes a full day on the Senate floor--each one. In the
past, if it was a controversial nominee, there would be additional time
that would be requested, and that time would be done. It has been done
25 times over 6 Presidents. To do it 100 times for President Trump--it
is obvious it is intentionally slowing down the Senate because when we
are dealing with what is called postcloture debate time on a nominee,
we can't deal with anything else. We can't deal with legislation. We
can't deal with any other topic, so the Senate comes to a stop. One
hundred days have been lost just doing that, lost time.
We have a lot of nominees who still need to go through, which
traditionally went through by voice vote or in rapid succession. The
White House still has a lot of nominees. They are due to be sent to us
as well. They can continue to send those nominees, but the nominees who
are here, who have gone through the committee process and have been
fully vetted--it is time to bring those to a vote so the President can
have his staff.
In 2013, Republicans and Democrats agreed together that things
started to slow down a little bit in 2012 on some nominees. Republicans
and Democrats came together to change the rule for how much time would
be set aside for nominees. Harry Reid did a presentation during that
time period and supported a proposal: 2 hours of time for district
court judges, 8 hours of time for just about everybody else, except for
Supreme Court, circuit court, and the Cabinet--they would still be 30
hours. Republicans joined Democrats in 2013 and agreed on that.
For a 2-year time period, Republicans and Democrats agreed alike that
was a reasonable amount of time for postcloture debate--2 hours, 8
hours, or 30 hours, depending on who that was. That expired at the end
of 2014. I brought that back up. I brought it to the Rules Committee.
The Rules Committee has debated it. The Rules Committee has now voted
it out of the committee.
My simple recommendation is, this was a Democratic proposal in 2013
for that time period. I think if it was good for the Democrats in 2013
and 2014, it should be good for Republicans or Democrats from here on
out--to not just have it for the next 2 years but to say that is a
simple rule to get the Senate back to functioning again.
My concern is, now with 100 cloture votes that have been done in the
past year and a half on nominations, the next time there is a
Democratic President--and there will be at some future time--you can be
assured that the Republicans are going to do at least 100 cloture votes
to them, and we will slow down government just as much. That doesn't
help us long term. We have to get out of this cycle, and we are in a
downward cycle of trying to deal with nominees. We need to be here in
August to work through nominees because we have not had enough time
because 100 days have been lost just sitting on cloture votes, waiting
on that to happen.
The second aspect of this I want to remind people of is this: We need
to be here in August, to work through this time period, because
appropriations need to be done. In 18 of the last 20 years, this
Congress has done an omnibus bill; that is, taking the 12 different
appropriations bills, throwing them all together with no amendments,
getting
[[Page S3018]]
the text of it the night before, and saying: Everyone, just vote on it
tomorrow. That has happened in 18 of the last 20 years.
We have bad muscle memory. Twenty-five years ago, this Congress would
debate those bills one at a time, bring them up onto the floor, and
amend them. Democrats and Republicans would have input into those
bills, and then they would pass. They would then be conferenced with
the House and go to the White House for signatures. That really wasn't
that long ago. Quite frankly, college students who are graduating right
now have no memory of this Congress ever doing the appropriations
process the right way. It has never happened in their lifetime. We have
to fix this.
The argument has been that we only have 50 workdays left before the
end of the fiscal year. The only way to get some of those workdays back
is to add in August. We have to get the appropriations process back on
track.
I hope most of this body can remember the early morning hours in
March of this year when this Senate passed a 2,232-page omnibus bill
that zero Members in this body had read because there was physically
not enough time to even read it. We got it late one night and had to
pass it the very next night. In fact, the House passed it at noon the
next day--merely hours after they received the bill. We can't do this.
We can do better. The only way to do it is to get time back in our
schedule.
I commend the leader for putting time back in the schedule. Senator
Perdue, I, and 14 other Senators wrote him a letter and said that we
need to consider this to get nominations done, to get appropriations
done. If we cannot get the work done in the time we have, we have to
make more time, and we have to get this done.
I commend the leader for this, but I also challenge this body to say
that we should not squander the days we have. None of us are going to
enjoy being here in August when there are lots of others things we
would like to do in our home States, but let's get the work done
because it is important for the future of the country, and the country
expects us to finish well what we are doing.
Mr. President, I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). The Senator from Maryland.
North Korea
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, next month will be the 65th anniversary of
the armistice that ended the battles and bloodshed of the Korean war.
As I am sure my colleagues know, the Korean war was never officially
ended. Over the last 65 years, we have seen hostility on the Korean
Peninsula. We have seen North Korea develop nuclear weapons, raising
security concerns, and active in cyber attacks and human rights
violations. The list goes on and on in the context of a formal state of
war between the north and the south.
The United States has made major investments in this region as a
result of our security concerns and our national interests. We helped
rebuild Japan and South Korea, we developed allies that share our
values, which is certainly in our interests, and we created a military
deterrent against a belligerent North Korea. Yet, during this period of
time, the Kim Jong Un regime in North Korea developed a nuclear weapons
program, including delivery systems. It violated international
commitments. The international community, led by the United States--I
must say, empowered by this Congress, which gave the administration the
ability to impose sanctions--with the leadership of the United States,
sanctions had been imposed against North Korea, and those sanctions had
impact.
This year, we saw a breakthrough with there being some hope of
security in the future. With the election of President Moon of South
Korea, the South Koreans have a leader who wants to have a better
relationship with North Korea, and the use of the Winter Olympics
helped to develop confidence between North Korea and South Korea. Now
President Trump is scheduled to meet with Kim Jong Un at the Singapore
summit on June 12, where there will be great opportunities. We hope
this will be an opportunity to end the war between North and South
Korea, create a framework to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula, and
forge a path toward stability and security for all.
It starts with an acknowledgment by North Korea that it has violated
international norms. That is the reason sanctions have been imposed. It
has an illegal nuclear program; its missile program violates
international norms; and it has created an oppressive regime against
the basic human rights of the North Korean people. Clearly, diplomacy
is our best option. That was the purpose of imposing sanctions--so that
we could get to this moment at which diplomacy actually may lead to
results. We couldn't have gotten here if we had not had a strong
sanctions regime imposed against North Korea.
As I have said all year, Congress gave the administration the tools
with which to do that. In working with our partners around the world,
the United States led in the effort in isolating North Korea in its
continuing down this path. We now have an opportunity for diplomacy.
Diplomacy is our best option. If we have to use the military, the risk
factors are so great as to what could happen that it begs the point
that, really, the only successful option is for diplomacy to work.
This is where we have hope, because there is a common objective
between the principal parties in trying to use diplomacy to end this
crisis. North Korea and China very much want to preserve the Kim Jong
Un regime. China does not want to see a democratic country on its
border. It wants to preserve North Korea's Communist regime. Obviously,
Kim Jong Un is interested in preserving his regime. The United States
and China have a common agenda in that both countries want to see the
Korean Peninsula absent of nuclear weapons.
Secretary of State Pompeo testified before the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee and indicated that the U.S. position is not for
regime change. I think that gave Kim Jong Un the ability to go forward
and say: Look, if the regime can be preserved and we get security
assurances, then we can do that without nuclear weapons. That gave us
the opportunity for diplomacy to succeed.
So where are we in regard to the summit that is scheduled in less
than 1 week?
I was pleased that the Subcommittee on East Asia, The Pacific, and
International Cybersecurity Policy, which is within the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, held a hearing this week with regard to the status
of the summit--with regard to what we can expect and how we should be
prepared. I appreciate Senator Gardner and Senator Markey, the chair
and ranking member of the subcommittee, for holding that hearing.
Joe Yun, who is the former top American diplomat and one of the
United States' leading experts on North Korea, was one of our
witnesses. Victor Cha, who is the former National Security Adviser for
North Korea, was the other witness. We had two of the top experts in
this country who understand North Korea, who understand Kim Jong Un,
who understand where we are in regard to what we can expect at the
summit that will take place on June 12. Both agreed that we will need
to have a realistic strategy in going into these negotiations.
I asked a specific question of the witnesses: Would Kim Jong Un be
willing to give up his nuclear weapons in going into these
negotiations?
Both agreed that was unlikely--unlikely, in the initial meetings,
that he would agree to give up his nuclear program.
What should we expect? What should the conditions be? We had a robust
discussion about that in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
It was pretty well agreed that it will start with a declaration by
North Korea of its current program. We will need to understand what it
is doing. We will need to know the venues of its nuclear program. We
will need to know exactly from where we will be starting. We will need
to make sure that the commitment to freeze that program will, in fact,
be carried out. We will need international inspectors to make sure
that, in fact, North Korea will not be advancing the program or its
missile program. Then we will need a plan to dismantle its nuclear
weapons program--all aspects of it. We will need to have a roadmap for
getting there. That is the realistic expectation of what we will be
able to achieve on June 12.
It is key for the United States to make it clear that we will not
make
[[Page S3019]]
concessions until we have at least reached that understanding--a
commitment to North Korea's dismantling the program, a freeze in place,
and inspectors in place. We will have to be patient, but we will also
have to be resolved that we will not make unilateral concessions.
This past week, several of my colleagues sent a letter to the
administration that outlined this. It was led by Senators Schumer and
Menendez, along with Senators Durbin, Feinstein, Brown, Leahy, and
Warner. I agree with the letter. Let me just quote some of the
conditions that are spelled out that we should be expecting in these
negotiations.
Ultimately, it should include the dismantling and removal of all
nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons from North Korea. The goal
must be the full, complete, and verifiable denuclearization of North
Korea. North Korea must continue its current ballistic missile test
suspension. North Korea must commit to having robust compliance
inspections, including a verification regime. The agreement with North
Korea must be permanent in nature. These are conditions I would hope we
could all agree on.
The letter goes on to read something that is critically important. In
its addressing other critical matters, it includes North Korea's human
rights practices and the need for them to be included in these
discussions. Dr. Cha said it best when he said that a comprehensive
political settlement with North Korea must include its agreement to end
the regime's systematic violation of human rights.
I understand our objective is to make sure we have a denuclearized
Korean Peninsula, and I agree with that. Yet, for long-term stability
in that region, we need a North Korean Government that respects the
rights of its citizens, and those discussions must start taking place
on June 12.
Here is my concern and the reason I am taking this time today.
We have to be prepared for this summit. President Trump needs to be
prepared, but President Trump needs to be prepared by working with
Congress. That is where we know we are the strongest. I have seen no
signs whatsoever of any congressional briefings or consultations from
the Trump administration in leading up to the June 12 summit. We need
to be on the same page in going into these discussions. Yet we have had
absolutely no consultation. Dr. Cha said to consult with Congress given
its role in funding and ratifying an agreement. We need to be involved.
Let me just underscore as to what Secretary Pompeo testified before
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I asked him a question as to
what role Congress should play in this. Secretary Pompeo volunteered to
say that he anticipates that this will be a treaty that will be
submitted to the U.S. Senate for ratification if they are successful.
If we are going to be called upon to ratify a treaty or if we are going
to be called upon to change the sanctions regime against North Korea,
we will need to be part of the process. We will not have to reinvent
the wheel.
We ran into a similar issue in 2015 with regard to President Obama's
negotiations for an Iran nuclear agreement. At that time, I was the
ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I worked with
our distinguished chairman, Senator Corker, and other members of our
committee, including Senator Kaine and Senator Menendez and others, and
we came up with the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. We know how
difficult it is to get consensus in the U.S. Congress on any particular
issue. Yet we passed that Review Act by a 19-to-0 vote in the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee. It passed overwhelmingly in the Congress
itself, and it establishes a proper role for Congress in its review of
such an agreement.
It doesn't restrict the President in his negotiations; it strengthens
the President in his negotiations by giving him the power of the
American Government, including the congressional part of our
government. It strengthens the oversight of compliance. It did that
with Iran, and it would do the same thing with regard to North Korea.
Just as with Iran, there is no trust when it comes to North Korea. So
the final agreement must be verifiable, transparent, and make clear
that any violation will result in the strongest possible sanctions. Our
congressional role can complement both the ongoing and forthcoming
negotiations with North Korea. Such legislation will help Congress's
oversight and representative responsibilities to the American people.
As we go to this historic meeting that will take place next week, I
know that every Senator--indeed, every American--will want the
President to be successful in this endeavor to denuclearize the Korean
Peninsula and to bring security and stability to the region. The best
chance for that to happen is with Congress exercising its
responsibility and being in a position to support the efforts and
understand the efforts so that we can act with a united voice in
America. Let us act accordingly.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Work of the Senate
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to voice my enthusiastic support for
the majority leader's announcement yesterday that we would be staying
in Washington through August. Already we have seen media reports that
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are upset about having to
work through August recess. As Leader McConnell said, this action would
not have been necessary but for the historic obstruction by our
Democratic colleagues who have used every available tool to delay
confirmations of executive and judicial nominations.
To put the scale of their obstruction into perspective, Senate
Democrats have forced 101 procedural cloture votes on President Trump's
nominees in his first 18 months. By comparison, the previous 6
Presidents combined saw a total of only 24 cloture votes in their first
2 years. In other words, Democrats have somehow managed to fit 40
years' worth of obstruction into just 18 months.
Even more infuriating, after Democrats pretend to object to nominees
by calling for cloture, many of them later vote in favor of
confirmation, acknowledging that the nominees are qualified and worthy
of the Senate's support.
Take, for example, the case of Fernando Rodriguez Jr., a highly
qualified nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas. Fernando has spent the last few years serving in the
International Justice Mission combating sex trafficking and human
rights abuses. He also has 10 years of experience practicing law, not
to mention invaluable experience as an educator with Teach for America.
Yesterday, Democrats forced a cloture vote on Fernando Rodriguez to
slow down his confirmation but still voted to confirm him unanimously.
This is absurd. It seems my friends on the other side of the aisle want
to have their obstruction cake and eat it, too, but you can't have it
both ways.
These procedural slowdowns are a transparent charade, a cynical side
show meant to shore up support among the Democratic base. I would
remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that this Chamber is
meant for policy, not politics. We can campaign on the weekends, but
right now we have serious work to do.
I have to state that there are some reasons to be political sometimes
on the floor but not to the extent that we have been subjected to by
our friends on the other side. Democrats have wasted precious hours of
debate with their partisan grandstanding, and the country is worse off
because of it. While my colleagues posture and preen for audiences on
national TV, dozens of executive and judicial nominations remain
unfilled, bringing the important work of government to a halt.
Enough already. Enough of the games. Enough of the disingenuous
handwringing. Enough of the Twitter-tailored cable TV meltdowns. Let's
set our egos aside for one moment to get done what the American people
have sent us here to do.
I look forward to working through August to make up for lost time.
That is not to say that recess or instate work periods are unimportant.
Indeed,
[[Page S3020]]
connecting with constituents back home is the most important part of
our jobs.
Despite what some would have you believe, we work just as much during
recess as we do here in session, if not more. I travel around the State
meeting with as many Utahns as possible, normally breaking just long
enough for a quick meal at my favorite all-you-can-eat buffet. In 1 day
of recess, I can talk trade and tariffs with a group of Utah cattlemen
before meeting with health experts to learn more about medical
marijuana research, visiting the family of a Utahn held captive
overseas, and convening a panel of education leaders to discuss school
safety--all in just 1 day. That is just part of what that 1 day was. As
anyone who has served in Congress knows, recess is no respite.
The time we spend at home meeting with constituents is absolutely
vital to our jobs, but of equal importance is confirming capable,
qualified judges to our courts. Our responsibility in the Senate is to
keep the judicial branch up and running. I have participated in more
than 1,800 judicial confirmations throughout my term of service, and I
look forward to working through August to confirm a few more. There is
no time to waste. I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
come together to get this done.
I believe there are really good people on both sides of the floor. I
believe most people would like to see us function better than we do
right now. I am certainly one of them, and I think there are a lot of
others in this body who feel exactly the same way. I just hope that for
the remainder of this year we can get together and do what we should do
in the best interest of the American people, and if we do that,
everybody will be better off. This country will be better off, our
functions in government will be better off, almost everything will be
better off. I think it is time for us to quit playing games around here
and do the work of the U.S. Senate, the greatest deliberative body in
the world, some say. I am one of them who does say that because I
believe we handle more absolutely crucial matters than any other
legislative body in the world, and I intend to see that we continue to
do it.
There are some things that folks on the other side or folks on our
side might want to fully test and fully work against. That is not bad;
that is part of this job, too, but to do it on everything, to make it
just miserable around here to get anything done, that discloses the bad
faith on whichever side is doing it, and it is just plain wrong. We
have to wake up and start acting like adults and do the things that
really should be done in this greatest of all legislative bodies.
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. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I am looking forward to proceeding to the
National Defense Authorization Act soon. Earlier today, I objected to a
unanimous consent request to get on the bill because I am very
concerned that I get an opportunity to offer an amendment that I have.
Based on the efforts of our chairman and his confidence that I will be
able to offer this amendment, I am prepared to agree to allow us to get
on the bill, and I look forward to doing that.
I want to address two amendments that I am hopeful will be included,
mine and one other. One of them has to do with the tariffs, especially
on steel and aluminum, that come under section 232 of our trade laws,
and the other is an amendment that I intend to offer with respect to
the CFIUS reform. Let me start with the section 232 tariffs.
This is a section of trade law that allows the President to restrict
imported goods that threaten our national security. It has been the law
of the land for some time. The statute gives very wide latitude to the
President and the Commerce Department--but really to the President--to
determine, first of all, what imports constitute a threat to our
national security and, then, secondly, the existing law does not
prescribe what the remedy will be. That is also left up to the
President. So there is a great deal of discretion that is in the hands
of the President.
In March of this year, after a nearly year-long investigation, the
President imposed tariffs on imported steel and aluminum--25 percent on
steel, 10 percent on aluminum. Then there was a temporary exclusion.
Then there were negotiations to make the temporary exclusions
permanent. In some cases that has occurred, as with South Korea and
other places, but they were negotiated. The exclusion--the ability of
the countries to sell steel to the United States without the American
consumers being subject to this tax--had a condition, and the condition
was that they would agree to other restrictions on their exports, such
as quotas, for instance, on the volume of their exports that would be
permitted. Shockingly to some, the President decided to even impose
these taxes--taxes on American consumers--when they buy steel that
originates in the EU, Canada, and Mexico, which originally had a
temporary exclusion but apparently no longer do.
These three allies--allies, mind you--make up about 40 percent of
U.S. steel imports by tonnage, and all three seem intent on imposing
retaliatory tariffs, which is what typically happens when tariffs are
launched.
More recently, the President has announced that the Commerce
Department will investigate whether foreign vehicles or automobiles
sold to U.S. consumers, like my constituents--cars and trucks--
represent a national security threat, with the possibility that they
will impose a 25-percent tax on Americans who buy those imported cars
and trucks.
I think this is a very bad idea. This is a bad path to be going on.
It is a bad policy. First of all, most directly, it is a direct tax on
American consumers. That is just irrefutable. Consumers--our
constituents--will have to pay higher prices for the products that are
subject to these taxes. The price of a Honda Civic made in Japan or a
Volkswagen Jetta made in Germany will increase by about $5,000 for a
U.S. consumer--a Pennsylvanian or Coloradan--who wants to buy one of
these vehicles. Of course, it is pretty clear to me that these taxes on
American consumers will do nothing to safeguard our national security.
I fail to see the national security threat when a Pennsylvanian decides
to buy a Toyota Corolla. It is not clear to me how that is a threat to
our national security.
In fact, there is no real national security threat that these tariffs
are a response to. They are an effort to impose a protectionist policy
for economic purposes.
In picking steel, it is particularly disturbing that section 232
would be invoked as the justification for taxes on steel imports.
Section 232 is explicitly reserved for national security threats, as I
mentioned. Let's think about this. Just last year, net steel imports
accounted for about 25 percent of America's total steel consumption. In
other words, domestically, we produce the large majority, about 75
percent, of all the steel we need to consume. For national security
purposes, our military needs about 3 percent of our domestic
consumption. We produce 75 percent. How is it even plausible that there
is a national security reason why we shouldn't be importing this steel?
Well, what about where it is coming from? That is interesting.
The biggest sources of imported steel are Canada and Mexico, where,
by the way, we have trade surpluses in steel. Again, using the
justification of national security, we have put tariffs--taxes that
Americans have to pay--when we buy steel from Canada and Mexico, our
close allies and contiguous countries. To suggest that we have a
national security need to tax Americans when they buy this small
percentage of our total consumption from these close allies and
neighbors is not credible. It is not credible.
In fact, for national security purposes, arguably, it undermines our
national security because it raises the cost of the steel that we need
to build things. We pay more for that steel. How is that good for
America?
It is clear to me that the President is using section 232 in a way
that was not intended by Congress. It is clear to me, anyway. Prior to
this year, section 232 was only invoked five times in all of its
[[Page S3021]]
history, but now we have this being invoked on steel and aluminum and
maybe automobiles as well.
Here is the thing. It is Congress that has the responsibility for
establishing tariffs--taxes--to regulate trade. It is explicit in the
Constitution. Article I, section 8, clause 1 reads: ``The Congress
shall have the Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises. . . .''
Article I, section 8, clause 3, includes Congress having the
responsibility to regulate commerce with foreign nations.
Well, obviously this is an explicit instruction that it is Congress's
responsibility to determine the level of tariffs and whether there will
be tariffs. What Congress has done over the years is passed laws that
delegate this authority to the President. First of all, I think it is a
bad idea for Congress to take constitutional authority that is
enshrined in our founding document and just punt it over to another
branch of our government. We should not be doing that. We ought to be
abiding by the Constitution, following the Constitution, and accepting
the responsibility that the Constitution gives to us.
I have long felt that this is a responsibility that Congress should
take back, that the prior legislation giving this to the President was
a mistake and it is time to take it back.
It is my understanding that Senator Corker is likely to offer an
amendment that would do something that is very simple, and it is an
elegant solution to this dilemma with respect to section 232 tariffs;
that is, to simply make them subject to congressional assent. It would
no longer be allowable, permissible under our law, if this amendment
were to be passed and signed into law, for any President to
unilaterally invoke section 232 and impose taxes on the American people
in response. There would be a period of time during which Congress
would review and would have to have an expedited up-or-down vote--not
subject to filibuster, not drawn out, but a quick up-or-down vote--to
determine whether that would be allowed. I would suggest that this
would be completely in keeping with our explicit constitutional
responsibility in this very important area.
I am very hopeful and optimistic that Senator Corker will, in fact,
offer his amendment and that it will be allowed and that we will debate
it, have a vote, and see how that goes.
I intend to offer a separate amendment. My amendment has to do with
CFIUS. CFIUS is an acronym that stands for the Committee on Foreign
Investments in the United States. CFIUS is an interagency committee--
multiple agencies within the executive branch--that reviews the
national security implications of foreign direct investments. So when a
company that is headquartered in another country wishes to make a
purchase of an American company, if there is a national security
implication or threat to that investment, which there could be, then,
under the existing CFIUS framework, this committee makes a
recommendation to the President, and the President has the authority to
block the transaction--to forbid the purchase of an American company,
say, by a foreign company--if there is a perception that this is a
threat to national security.
Senator Cornyn has introduced legislation that would update and
modernize the authorities. It would dramatically broaden the power and
the authority of CFIUS. I am supportive of what Senator Cornyn wants to
do. I voted for his legislation in the Banking Committee. This reform
of CFIUS has been put into the national defense authorization bill so
that if and when we get on that bill, we will also be contemplating
this broadening of the powers of CFIUS.
How does the Cornyn legislation broaden CFIUS? Well, first of all, it
dramatically expands the transactions that can be reviewed by CFIUS.
For instance, under current law, CFIUS has no legal authority to review
if a foreign company chooses to buy real estate that is undeveloped--a
raw piece of land somewhere. That is not subject to CFIUS review. But
what if an unfriendly government has an investment in a company in
their country that wants to buy a big tract of land right next to a
sensitive military installation of the United States? That might be a
convenient place for them to set up listening devices and other ways
for them to spy on our military capabilities, for instance. So I think
it is a good idea to give CFIUS the authority to look at real estate
transactions.
It would also expand CFIUS's authority to look at nonpassive
investment in critical technology or infrastructure by any foreign
person. It would review any change in foreign investors' rights
regarding a U.S. business, and there are many other new categories of
transactions.
CFIUS historically, roughly speaking--I think they review something
on the order of 200 or 250 transactions per year under existing law. If
this new reform is adopted, then the experts believe that CFIUS will
likely review something on the order of 2,000 or 2,500 transactions per
year. So it is a very, very broad expansion in the power of the
government to block foreign direct investment in the United States.
We should be clear about one aspect of this. The reforms to CFIUS are
largely a response to very aggressive and in many cases inappropriate
behavior by Chinese companies. Companies that are headquartered in
China--very often there is some Chinese Government ownership, and there
is a long history of the Chinese, through these vehicles, engaging in
wholly inappropriate activity, including coerced technology transfer on
the part of U.S. companies through a variety of means. This is a real
problem, and expanding the authority of CFIUS is an important element,
in my view, in dealing with this problem.
So this is the main reason I am in favor of expanding the powers of
CFIUS, but it is also very important that we not, in the process,
unduly undermine foreign direct investment in the United States that is
not a threat to our national security at all--in fact, that is the vast
majority of foreign direct investment in the United States. When Toyota
decides to build a new manufacturing facility to make cars in
Tennessee, that is not a threat to America's national security. If they
were to make an investment with a car company in the United States and
establish a joint venture and start making cars in Michigan, that would
not be a threat to national security. The vast majority of transactions
are not at all a threat. In fact, they are a source of important jobs.
In my State of Pennsylvania, there are 334,000 Pennsylvanians who work
for foreign-based companies that have invested in and operate in and
create jobs in Pennsylvania, and 186,000 of those jobs are in
manufacturing.
Consider this: In 2015, the total amount of foreign direct investment
in the United States--so the total amount of money invested by people
and companies that are somewhere other than America but choose to
invest in America--the total was almost half a trillion dollars, $465
billion. Do you know how much of that came from China? Less than $6
billion out of almost $500 billion. So it is a very small percentage.
In 2016, the numbers were comparable--about $460 billion in total
foreign direct investment and about 10 of that from China.
China is not even close to be being in the top 10 countries that are
the source of foreign direct investment in the United States. That
doesn't mean it is unimportant to consider when Chinese companies are
making investments. It is very important. But my point is that the vast
majority of the foreign direct investment in our country is good for
our economy. It creates jobs and opportunities, and we don't want to
disrupt that. If the implementation of this reform to CFIUS goes badly,
it could have a chilling effect on foreign direct investment, and that
would diminish our economic growth, our economic strength, and cost us
who knows how many jobs. That is what I want to make sure we avoid.
In the course of the implementation, the way this is going to happen
under the law is that the reformed CFIUS--the legislation that we are
going to consider as part of NDAA requires this CFIUS committee to
develop the rules that will basically define the terms of their own
operations. So, for instance, they will have very broad discretion. If
their discretion is too broad--I should say, if they exercise it too
broadly, if they end up applying CFIUS restrictions too broadly, we
will lose the foreign direct investment that is good for
[[Page S3022]]
us. If they define it too narrowly, then there is a chance we won't
catch bad actors whom we should catch.
Let me give a few examples of how the rulemaking is going to
determine how CFIUS applies. One of the key terms throughout the
legislation is ``critical infrastructure and technology companies.''
Those are the companies with technologies that we don't necessarily
want to end up in the hands of an adversarial country like China. Well,
guess who defines what is a critical infrastructure and technology
company? CFIUS does. We don't here in the Senate. Congress doesn't. We
empower the committee, CFIUS, to decide what constitutes a critical
infrastructure technology company.
We also empower CFIUS to decide when a company is attempting to
circumvent the rules. That is an important issue because following the
rules strictly so as not to be caught up in this could be deemed to be
a circumvention, so that is an important factor.
There are lots of other rulemakings that we require of this
committee, and it is the way they make those rules that will determine
exactly the extent to which we continue to foster constructive foreign
direct investment or we choke it off.
My concern is that Congress should not simply blindly hand this off
to the executive branch and hope for the best. That would not be
fulfilling our obligation to enact the legislation as it should be
enacted. So I intend to file an amendment, and my amendment is very
simple. It is just going to provide Congress with the opportunity and
the requirement to review the major rulemakings--the big parts, the
important parts--defining the terms and circumstances under which CFIUS
will operate before they can go into effect. So CFIUS will go ahead,
promulgate these rules, and before they become operative, there has to
be an up-or-down vote by Congress.
We have written this so that there will be an expedited procedure. It
will pass with a simple majority. There has to be a vote. The vote
actually has to happen in almost the exact same timeframe as the rule's
implementation. In other words, after a rulemaking is finished, there
is a 60-day delay before it becomes operative. It is during that window
that Congress would have its vote. It cannot be filibustered. It cannot
be delayed. But what it would do is it would ensure that we are
involved in this process, that we have the oversight we are supposed to
exercise to make sure it is done properly, and it ensures that we would
work with the administration.
If Congress were to reject one or more of these rules, that wouldn't
stop the administration. They would then work with us to address
whatever concerns led to the objection and then submit a new rule.
It is modeled somewhat after the REINS Act that is very broadly
supported on this side of the aisle. I should point out that it is much
more limited because this congressional review of the rulemaking under
my amendment applies only to the rules made by CFIUS under this
legislation. So it is a very narrow application. There were 39
Republican cosponsors of the REINS Act. If that were the law of the
land, if that had been adopted, we wouldn't be having this discussion
because it would automatically apply to the rulemaking of CFIUS. So it
is hard to see why anyone who supports the REINS Act would oppose this.
I am certainly hoping that my Democratic colleagues will support this
as well. Let's be honest--they have not been big fans of the Trump
administration. Many of them have voted against the Cabinet and agency
leaders whom President Trump has nominated who will be responsible for
carrying out these rules. For them to vote no on this amendment would
be for them to insist that they not have the opportunity to review the
work of the Trump administration. Given their obvious and vocal
skepticism about the Trump administration, why in the world would they
refuse the opportunity to have veto power over very important
rulemaking? I can't imagine why they would. So I hope they will support
this, and I hope my Republican colleagues will as well.
Another important point, just to reiterate, the congressional
approval applies only to the rulemaking of CFIUS when it is done. It
certainly does not apply to the individual transactions that would
subsequently be reviewed by CFIUS under these rules; it applies just to
the rules themselves. And it certainly would not result in killing
CFIUS reform. Congress has demonstrated a very broad, bipartisan
consensus that we need to broaden the authority of CFIUS, so I am quite
confident that when these rules are done, if they are done in a
sensible fashion, Congress is going to agree to them because Congress
wants CFIUS to have this new authority. I will point out, it would
almost certainly have the effect of encouraging the administration to
work closely with Congress to make sure they are in fact developing
rules that are consistent with congressional intent. That is exactly
the way it should work.
If this amendment passes, I foresee greater collaboration between the
administration and Congress on the implementation of this CFIUS reform.
I think that will likely lead to a better product, one that ensures we
will catch the bad actors who are trying to make investments in the
United States for the purpose of acquiring technology we don't want
them to have and allow for the good, constructive, helpful foreign
direct investment we all benefit from.
My hope is, we will get on this Defense authorization bill soon, that
these and many other amendments will be debated and voted on, and we
will be able to pass this with a very strong affirmative vote.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to use a prop in my presentation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Remembering Robert F. Kennedy
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, today we remember Robert F. Kennedy,
whose life was brutally, savagely cut short 50 years ago.
Robert Kennedy was a Presidential candidate, a U.S. Senator, a Member
of this Chamber, an Attorney General, a naval officer, a father, a son,
a husband, and a brother, but more than all of that, he was a beacon of
hope amidst turbulent and difficult times in our Nation, and he was an
inspiration to generations of Americans.
Speaking at his brother's funeral, our former colleague Senator Ted
Kennedy said that Robert Kennedy ``need not be idealized, or enlarged
in death beyond what he was in life; to be remembered simply as a good
and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and
tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it.''
I was inspired by his efforts to right wrong, heal suffering, and
stop war--inspired enough that when I became a U.S. Senator and was
assigned an office that happened to be the former office of Robert F.
Kennedy in the Russell Building, I proudly pointed out to visitors that
here, in my office, once sat the great Robert Kennedy, who did in fact
see wrong and tried to right it, suffering and tried to heal it, and
war and tried to stop it.
In May 1968, I was in sixth grade. I was an 11-year-old out in
Oregon, and Bobby Kennedy, as we affectionately refer to him, was
campaigning in my State. He was going very quickly from community to
community, delivering speeches in one high school after another. My
sixth grade teacher announced that he was going to give a speech at
David Douglas High School--my future high school, except I was only in
sixth grade, and I had never set foot in the halls of that high school.
He was going to give a speech the next night.
My father was a mechanic. He worked very hard. He was off in the
evening, quite happy to settle in, watch the national news, read the
newspaper, and reflect on the news of the day.
I came to him, and I said: I understand Robert Kennedy is giving a
speech, and we can go see him.
My father said: It is the end of the day, Son. I just don't feel like
going out again.
At that moment, I wish so much that I had said: I think I will go
down to that high school, find my way down to that high school I had
never been to, and see him speak, but I didn't, and it is one of the
things I have regretted all my life.
When he was campaigning in Oregon and going from high school to high
[[Page S3023]]
school, he went also to some iconic places.
Here he is in the surf near Fort Stevens. Fort Stevens is a place I
used to camp as a kid. It has a historic shipwreck, the wreck of the
Peter Iredale. Now it is pretty much rusted into the sand and
disappeared, but I can imagine Robert Kennedy walking and seeing that
wreck as he was on this beach.
He went out to Baker County, OR. This is an iconic photo of him on
the runway, with the mountains in the background, with his dog. There
is a version of this picture that Ted Kennedy gave to me the month
before he passed away, and you can see here the snow-covered mountains
in the background and walking down the runway in one of those few
moments of peace and reflection in between his speeches all across the
State.
When Senator Ted Kennedy gave me this picture, he also wrote me a
letter. This was in July, a month before Ted Kennedy passed away. He
said:
I've always loved this photo of Bobby and his dog Freckles
taken in Baker City, Oregon, on May 22, 1968.
He said he has a copy of it hanging in his office. He knew a little
bit from our conversations that Bobby had been an inspiration to me,
and he wrote:
I know that Bobby played an important role in shaping your
political views, and I thought you'd like to have a copy of
the photograph for your Senate office as well. I only wish I
could give it to you in person.
I do have that photo proudly displayed on my Senate office wall, and
it is a reminder of the very special feelings we had about the
campaign. We had war abroad in Vietnam in 1968. We had riots at home
over the war. We had deep, deep civic tensions between the generations.
There was a sense that his leadership and his ability to bridge the
divides among races and genders and classes could, in his words, ``bind
up the wounds among us and to become in our hearts brothers and
countrymen once again.'' Those words have resonance for today, where
our divisions are so deep.
Anyone who spent much time paying attention to Robert Kennedy's life
knows that his life was full of contradictions. He was a man of wealth,
well educated, and could quote poets like Tennyson and philosophers but
who also had an unmatched ability to touch the hearts of, and fight
for, the poorest among us. He was a ruthless enforcer of the law who
never thought twice about taking on organized crime or foreign
dictators but had a heart of tenderness and could spend hours playing
with young children. He was a younger brother who stood in the shadow
of his older sibling, but he stepped out of that shadow to inspire us
and to run for the Presidency of the United States.
Bobby was raised in a family that recognized the privileges it had,
the advantages it had from its history, its affluence, its connections,
but also recognized that with all that they had, they had an extra
responsibility--a sizable responsibility--to use those advantages to
help others. That, too, is something that is worth all of us thinking
about.
Whether it was the fight for civil rights, championing the poor and
destitute living in Third World conditions in Appalachia and the
Mississippi Delta, challenging South Africa's students to stand up
against apartheid, or organizing the end of war in Vietnam, his life
was dedicated to helping others.
When our Nation seemed poised on the brink of tearing itself apart,
there was Bobby Kennedy, preaching a message of love, wisdom, and
compassion toward one another--a message of reunification, a message of
reconciliation. But with all of this, his efforts to take that vision
to the Presidency--that vision of wisdom, compassion, and
reconciliation--never happened because that opportunity was cut short
by an assassin's bullet. That happened just after Bobby Kennedy left
Oregon and flew to California, just 2 weeks after I had the opportunity
to see him speak in a high school gymnasium and didn't seize the moment
to do it.
As Bobby Kennedy said in his speech to the City Club of Cleveland,
``Our lives on this planet are too short and the work to be done too
great,'' but we cannot let that stop us from working together to seek
and build a new world.
We will never know whether Robert Kennedy would have succeeded in his
election to be President or exactly what would have flowed from a
second Kennedy administration. We can only speculate on how our
Nation's history might have been changed and how different our country
might have been with his vision, his inspiration, his effort to tackle
the issues of poverty, the issues and challenges of war, the issues and
challenges of division in our Nation.
One thing we know for sure, the world has been a lesser place these
last 50 years because Robert F. Kennedy is not in it, but his thoughts
live on. In this institution, Members of the Senate should carry those
thoughts forward on these important issues he addressed--of war,
poverty, bigotry, discrimination, and ensuring opportunity for all.
In his speech to students in Cape Town, South Africa, Robert Kennedy
said: ``Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the
lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny
ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different
centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can
sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.''
That is advice we need now more than ever--that we need to work to
create those ripples that together can create a mighty current to set
our Nation back on track. When it comes to war, we now have not one but
many--a war in Afghanistan based on false assumptions, a war in Iraq
based on false information, wars in Africa, Syria, and Yemen for which
the issue of authorization has never been debated on the floor of this
Senate, despite the constitutional call to do so.
When it comes to prosperity, despite our Nation's enormous growth and
wealth over the last four decades, we still have people suffering in
Appalachia, in Mississippi, in our inner cities, and in our rural
towns. Because income equality has surged over four decades, we have
seen that workers' wages are flat or declining while the cost of
everything goes up from healthcare to housing to the cost of a child
attempting to attend college.
While we may have come a long way from the firehoses and dogs turned
against peaceful protesters demanding voting rights and civil rights, a
long way since Attorney General Kennedy crusaded for civil rights,
calling in the National Guard to register the University of Alabama's
first African-American students--while we may have come a long way on
that trail, we still have a long way to go, as we saw in
Charlottesville last year, as we have seen through the last several
years of campaigning, an administration in which the temptation too
often has come from the Oval Office to denigrate different groups of
Americans, whether they be African Americans or Haitian Americans or
Latin Americans or women Americans or Americans with disabilities or
Muslim Americans. When we hear that, let us remember the vision of
America, of equal opportunity, and stand with our brothers and sisters
in any given group, arm to arm, hip to hip, and say: Here in America,
we believe in the vision that is indivisible, that we cite in our
Pledge of Allegiance, that recognizes we come from a tremendous number
of backgrounds, but together, with those talents, those differences, we
have a nation of greater strength, greater beauty, and greater
opportunity for the future.
Fifty years after his passing, I think it is of value to all of us to
reflect on the lessons of the life of Robert F. Kennedy--his hope, his
optimism, his fierce determination to fight the battles to make the
world a better place.
RFK was famous for regularly quoting the Irish playwright George
Bernard Shaw, saying:
Some men see things as they are, and ask why. I dream of
things that never were, and ask why not.
I think it is up to all of us, each and every day, to dream of the
things that have never been here in America but could be a greater,
more beautiful, stronger, more prosperous, more hopeful America and say
``Why not?''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). The majority leader.
____________________