[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.

                          ____________________