[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 97 (Tuesday, June 12, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3730-S3738]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 5515, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 5515) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2019 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Inhofe/McCain modified amendment No. 2282, in the nature of 
     a substitute.
       McConnell (for Toomey) amendment No. 2700 (to amendment No. 
     2282), to require congressional review of certain regulations 
     issued by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United 
     States.
       Reed/Warren amendment No. 2756 (to amendment No. 2700), to 
     require the authorization of appropriation of amounts for the 
     development of new or modified nuclear weapons.
       Lee amendment No. 2366 (to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by amendment No. 2282), to clarify that an 
     authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or 
     any similar authority does not authorize the detention 
     without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent 
     resident of the United States.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The Democratic leader is recognized.


Congratulating Mitch McConnell as the Longest Serving Senate Republican 
                                 Leader

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, before I begin my remarks, I wish to 
congratulate our Republican leader on becoming the longest serving 
Republican leader in the Senate. My friend Leader McConnell reached 
that milestone today.
  It is no secret we disagree on a whole lot of issues, both political 
and philosophical, but that doesn't mean we can't or don't work 
together or that I don't admire the qualities which help make him the 
longest serving Republican leader.
  He understands his caucus and represents them well. He knows how to 
fight, and he knows how to cooperate. The job is not an easy one so it 
is a testament to his qualities that he has done it longer than anyone 
in the history of the Senate.


                            Trump-Kim Summit

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, on North Korea, in the early hours this 
morning, President Trump and Chairman Kim met in Singapore for the 
first meeting between a sitting U.S. President and the leader of North 
Korea. It was a welcome improvement to see the two of them having a 
dialogue rather than engaging in name-calling and saber-rattling. 
Certainly, Americans feel better about talking than name-calling and 
threats of war, which had characterized the relationship up until now.
  Though we are all rooting for diplomacy to succeed, we must be clear-
eyed about what a diplomatic success with North Korea looks like. A 
diplomatic success would be the complete, verifiable, irreversible 
denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula--nothing less. Why do we say 
that? It is not to make any political points, but a nuclear North Korea 
with ICBMs probably presents a greater danger to the United States and 
the safety and well-being of

[[Page S3731]]

our country than any other in the world. It is imperative that we 
actually get action here, not just photo ops. Previous negotiations 
have sought the same goal, with good reason. In 1994 and 2005, those 
negotiations yielded agreements that were, in fact, much more rigorous 
than the initial communique issued by President Trump and Chairman Kim. 
This communique lists denuclearization as a far-off goal but includes 
no details about a pathway to achieving it; no details about how the 
United States might verify that North Korea has disarmed when they 
repeatedly lied in the past; no details about stopping the enrichment 
of plutonium and uranium; no details even about the definition of 
complete denuclearization, which has been a main point of contention in 
previous negotiations.
  Unfortunately, the entire document is short on details. As we have 
learned, in the wake of the collapse of the 1994 and 2005 agreements, 
North Korea is liable to backtrack on vague commitments as soon as it 
is in its interest. Chairman Kim, like his father before him, has a 
history of backing away from agreements. There is a great fear now that 
Chairman Kim has won a major concession from the United States of a 
meeting with our President, he may not go any further.
  Now, as then, we must be wary of this probability. When trust is 
lacking, it is best not to dive in headfirst and hope for the best but 
rather to work slowly, transparently, and verifiably to build trust and 
lock in concessions. It is worrisome--very worrisome--that this joint 
statement is so imprecise.
  What the United States has gained is vague and unverifiable at best; 
what North Korea has gained, however, is tangible and lasting. By 
granting a meeting with Chairman Kim, President Trump has granted a 
brutal and repressive dictatorship the international legitimacy it long 
craved. The symbols that were broadcast all over the world last night 
have lasting consequences for the United States, for North Korea, and 
the entire region.
  For the United States, it is permanent proof that we have legitimized 
a brutal dictator who has starved his own people. For North Koreans, to 
have their flags astride those of the United States, it is a clear 
symbol that they are to be respected and belong among the community of 
nations, and their sins at home and abroad are beginning to be 
forgiven. If the United States is unable to win concrete, lasting 
concessions from North Korea, the meeting alone will be a victory for 
Kim Jong Un and a defeat for President Trump.
  Even more troubling, only an hour ago, President Trump agreed to 
freeze joint military exercises with South Korea--a legal activity--in 
exchange for the mere hope that North Korea will freeze its illegal 
nuclear testing regime. Alarmingly, President Trump called our military 
exercises with South Korea provocations. That is something North Korea 
would say, not South Korea or the United States.
  Again, it seems the President has undercut our foreign policy by 
drawing a false equivalency between joint military exercises with our 
allies and the nuclear testing of a rogue regime.
  Ultimately, if this is the result, it will have failed President 
Trump's own standard. The President has said that ``if North Korea 
doesn't denuclearize, that will not be acceptable.'' President Trump 
has not made much progress toward that goal yet and has given up 
substantial leverage already: the leverage of joint military exercises 
and the leverage of an audience with the President of the United 
States.
  Imagine for a moment if a Democratic President had gone to North 
Korea in similar circumstances and came away with little more than a 
handshake and a photo op. Imagine if a Democratic President had placed 
the flag of the United States next to the flag of North Korea and met a 
dictator on equal terms. The commentators of the rightwing media and, 
in fact, the entire Republican Party would be shouting grave warnings 
about the end of American leadership and the belittling of our country, 
about selling out and appeasement.
  We Democrats do not see it this way. We remain supportive of American 
diplomatic efforts, in general, but are focused on significant, 
substantive concerns with President Trump's preliminary arrangement 
with North Korea. We want to see these efforts succeed and ensure that 
what has just transpired was not purely a reality show summit.
  Here in the Senate, we Democrats believe that means five things. 
First, North Korea must dismantle or remove every single one of its 
nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Second, North Korea must end 
the production and enrichment of uranium and plutonium for military 
purposes and permanently dismantle its nuclear weapons infrastructure. 
That means test sites, all nuclear weapons research and development 
facilities, and enrichment facilities all have to be destroyed. Third, 
North Korea must continue to suspend all ballistic missile tests. 
Fourth, North Korea must commit to anytime, anywhere inspections for 
both its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, including all 
nondeclared suspicious sites. If inspectors reveal any violation, we 
must be permitted to implement snapback sanctions. Lastly, any 
agreement between the United States and North Korea must be permanent.
  Let us hope this is not the final chapter in diplomacy with 
Pyongyang. President Trump and his team must take stock in what has 
happened, what North Korea has achieved, and what we have yet to 
achieve and pursue again a tougher course. For the sake of our national 
security, our interests abroad, and the safety of the American people, 
the United States can settle for no less than the certifiable, 
permanent denuclearization of North Korea.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mrs. ERNST. Madam President, I come to the floor to make amendment 
No. 2400 pending, but it is my understanding that we are almost at an 
agreement on the hotline.
  This bill has cleared committee by voice vote and by my colleagues on 
the Republican side by the hotline. However, my minority counterparts 
have had months to look at this bill, but it has remained held up on 
the hotline. The bill passed the House with unanimous support and has 
been included in the House's NDAA bill. I call on my colleagues across 
the aisle to clear this bill or else I will fight for a vote on it in 
the NDAA.
  My legislation, the Presidential Allowance Modernization Act, would 
establish a cap on former Presidents' monetary allowances, which are 
currently unlimited and fund resources like office space, staff 
salaries, cell phone bills, and more. It would then reduce the 
allowance, dollar-for-dollar, by each dollar of income a former 
President earns in excess of $400,000.
  The national debt is over $20 trillion. We cannot afford to 
generously subsidize the perks of former Presidents to the tune of 
millions of dollars. The reality is that post-Presidential life already 
provides fruitful opportunities on its own, with former Presidents 
raking in tens of millions of dollars from book deals, speaking 
engagements, and more.
  Again, I call on my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill, which 
would save taxpayer dollars that could be used for more worthwhile 
causes, like our military. I also thank the senior Senator from 
Missouri for cosponsoring this legislation and making it a bipartisan 
bill.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  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. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kennedy). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me take this opportunity to thank my 
colleagues on the Armed Services Committee for their hard work in 
presenting this bill, but I am going to cast a very strong ``no'' vote 
on this legislation. This morning I want to say a few words about why I 
am voting no, to talk about the number of amendments I have submitted 
to this bill, and to express my very serious concerns about our 
Nation's bloated military budget, particularly in light of the many 
unmet needs we face as a nation.

[[Page S3732]]

  Also, I must express a very serious objection to the fact that we are 
dealing with a $716 billion piece of legislation that is more than half 
of the discretionary budget, yet we will in all likelihood not have a 
process that allows for amendments to be debated--$716 billion, at a 
time when, in Louisiana, as I understand it, they are now going to be 
cutting food stamps for hungry children, when schools throughout this 
country don't have enough money for books or for teachers' salaries. We 
are talking about a $716 billion military budget and this process, as I 
understand it, will allow for no amendments, despite the fact that 
virtually every Member of the Senate has concerns about this bill.
  Over and over again I have heard my Republican colleagues and a 
number of Democratic colleagues come to the floor and talk about a very 
serious issue, and that is the $21 trillion national debt we are 
leaving our kids and our grandchildren. But somehow, when it comes to 
giving huge tax breaks--$1 trillion dollars in tax breaks to the top 1 
percent--suddenly we don't hear much about that national debt. When it 
comes to spending $716 billion on a defense bill, my Republican friends 
are mute. Suddenly the debt has disappeared because it is OK to spend 
unlimited sums of money on the military.
  I have heard my Republican colleagues tell us that the United States 
just cannot afford to join the rest of the industrialized world--every 
other major country--and guarantee healthcare for all of our people as 
a right to a Medicare for All program. It is what the American people 
want, but I am told we cannot afford that. We can afford $716 billion 
in 1 year for the military, but healthcare for our children, for our 
working people, for the 30 million people who have no health insurance, 
and for the tens of millions of people who cannot afford health 
insurance--that we cannot afford.
  At the moment that we are engaged in a highly competitive global 
economy, I am told over and over again that we cannot afford to make 
public colleges and universities tuition-free. Hundreds of thousands of 
our young people are unable to go to college because their families 
lack the income. Millions leave school deeply in debt. No, no, no, we 
cannot afford to make public colleges and universities tuition-free, 
but we can afford to spend $716 billion in 1 year on the military.
  Over half of older Americans have no retirement savings--no 
retirement savings--yet we have Republican colleagues in the House and 
here in the Senate who say: Oh, we can't afford Social Security. We 
have to cut Social Security for people who are trying to get by on 
$12,000, $13,000, $14,000 a year, cutting their prescription drugs in 
half. Cut Social Security, yes, but think about dealing with the $716 
billion military budget in a rational way? No, no, no, we can't afford 
to do that. We can't even afford to accept amendments here on the 
floor.
  The time is long overdue for us to take a hard look at the enormous 
amount of waste, cost overruns, fraud, and financial mismanagement that 
has plagued the Department of Defense for decades.
  I have heard many of my Republican colleagues worry that low-income 
people are taking advantage of this program or that program. Do you 
know where the money is? The money is with the Department of Defense, 
and it may be time that we take a hard look at the fraud and the 
financial mismanagement that exists there. That is why I am offering a 
bipartisan amendment. I want to thank Senators Grassley and Lee for 
their support on this amendment to end the absurdity of the Department 
of Defense being the only Federal agency that has not undergone an 
audit.

  It will not surprise the Presiding Officer to note that according to 
a Gallup poll in February, a few months ago, 65 percent of the American 
people oppose spending more money on the Department of Defense; 65 
percent say that we should not spend more money, yet over a 2-year 
period, we are going to spend some $165 billion more on the defense.
  So it shouldn't shock anyone that what happens here is a direct 
contradiction to what the American people want. The American people 
want healthcare for all; my Republican colleagues want to throw 30 
million people off of health insurance. The American people want to ask 
the rich and powerful to pay more in taxes; our Republican colleagues 
give massive tax breaks to the top 1 percent.
  In defense spending, it is just the same thing. The American people 
say: I can't afford to send my kids to college, I can't afford 
childcare, and I can't afford housing. We need help. But nobody listens 
to that. We don't have lobbyists here fighting for working families so 
they can find affordable housing or affordable prescription drugs, but 
today we are listening to the military industrial complex and talking 
about a $165 billion increase in 2 years for the military.
  As a point in comparison--and I hope everyone hears this--the 
increase in military spending, the $165 billion over 2 years that we 
recently approved is larger than the entire military budget of China. 
China spends about $150 billion a year on defense. We have increased 
military spending by $165 billion over 2 years.
  Russia spends about $61 billion on defense annually. So children in 
Louisiana may be losing their food stamps and go hungry, but we are 
voting on a bill of $716 billion at a time when Russia spends about of 
$61 billion on defense.
  There are enormous needs in this country in Vermont, in California, 
and all across this country. We might want to listen to the needs of 
working people rather than just lobbyists from the military industrial 
complex.
  I believe in a strong national defense, but we cannot continue to 
give the Pentagon and defense contractors like Lockheed Martin a blank 
check while we ignore the basic needs of working families throughout 
this country. What this debate should be about--and, unfortunately, it 
will not be about--is our national priorities.
  Do we have to spend more money on defense than the next 10 countries 
combined when children in America go hungry, when veterans sleep out on 
the street, when we are the only major country that does not guarantee 
healthcare to all people? I say no, and I say that the time is long 
overdue for us to stand up to the lobbyists and the military industrial 
complex and fight for rational national priorities.
  About half of the Pentagon's $716 billion budget goes directly into 
the hands of private contractors, not into the hands of our troops. 
Let's be clear. Over the past two decades, virtually every major 
defense contractor in the United States has paid millions of dollars in 
fines and settlements for misconduct and fraud, all--at the same time--
while making huge profits on government contracts.
  Since 1995, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and United Technologies have 
paid nearly $3 billion in fines or related settlements for fraud or 
misconduct--$3 billion--at a time when oversight, frankly, is pretty 
weak. Yet those three companies alone received about $800 billion in 
defense contracts over the past 18 years.
  One of the amendments I have filed would simply require the Pentagon 
to establish a website on defense contract fraud with a list of 
companies convicted of defrauding the Federal Government, the total 
value of contracts awarded to such companies, and a list of 
recommendations for ways the Pentagon can penalize fraudulent 
contractors. My guess is that fraud is a way of doing business and 
these settlements are simply a cost of doing business for companies who 
have huge contracts with the Department of Defense. That has to stop.
  Further, I find it interesting that the very same defense contractors 
that have been found guilty or reached settlements for fraud are also 
paying their CEOs and executives excessive and obscene compensation 
packages. Last year, the CEO of Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, two of 
the top U.S. defense contractors, were each paid over $20 million in 
total compensation. Moreover, more than 90 percent of the revenue of 
those companies came from defense spending. So they get the bulk of 
their money from the taxpayers of the United States, and then they pay 
their CEOs exorbitant compensation packages.
  I think the American people might like to know why a defense 
contractor can pay its CEO 100 times more than the Secretary of 
Defense, whose salary is capped at $205,000. To my mind, that is a 
reasonable question. How does the CEO of a defense contractor get 100 
times more salary than the Secretary

[[Page S3733]]

of Defense? That is why I have filed an amendment to prohibit defense 
contractor CEOs from making more money than the Secretary of Defense.
  Moreover, as the GAO has told us, there are massive cost overruns in 
the Defense Department's acquisition budget that we have to address. 
According to the GAO, the Pentagon's $1.66 trillion acquisition 
portfolio currently suffers from more than $537 billion in cost 
overruns, with much of the cost growth taking place after production.
  I was the mayor of the city of Burlington, VT, for 8 years. Like 
other mayors throughout the country--Democrats, Republicans, 
Independents, whatever--you sit down and negotiate a contract with 
someone who perhaps is going to repave the streets. The contractor 
says: ``I'm going to do it for $5 million,'' and you sign a 
contract. You don't accept the fact that the contractor comes back and 
says: Oh, I am sorry, I made a little mistake. It is going to cost you 
people $10 million.

  That is not the way it was done in Burlington. That is not the way it 
is done in cities or States throughout this country. But apparently 
that is the way it is done at the Department of Defense.
  Oh, yes, Mr. Secretary, we are going to do this weapons system for $5 
billion. We made a mistake; you have to pay us $10 billion.
  No problem. No worries. Nobody in Congress is going to raise any 
issue about that.
  GAO tells us that ``many DOD programs fall short of cost, schedule, 
and performance expectations, meaning DOD pays more than anticipated, 
can buy less than expected, and, in some cases, delivers less 
capability to the warfighter.'' That is not from Bernie Sanders; that 
is from the GAO.
  Let me repeat. A major reason there is so much waste, fraud, and 
abuse at the Pentagon is that the Department of Defense remains the 
only Federal agency in America that hasn't been able to pass an 
independent audit 28 years after Congress required it to do so. I know 
the Federal bureaucracy moves slowly, but 28 years should be enough 
time for the DOD to do what Congress demanded that it do.
  The amendment Senator Grassley, Senator Lee, and I have filed 
couldn't be simpler. It simply says that if the Pentagon can't pass a 
clean audit by fiscal year 2022--not tomorrow; fiscal year 2022--then a 
small portion of the defense budget--about $100 million--will be 
redirected to deficit reduction.
  Interestingly, you may recall that on September 10, 2001--1 day 
before 9/11--former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who was 
George W. Bush's Secretary of Defense, said:

       Our financial systems are decades old. According to some 
     estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We 
     cannot share information from floor to floor in this building 
     because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that 
     are inaccessible or incompatible.

  In 2001, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush's Secretary of Defense, said 
that DOD could not track $2.3 trillion in transactions. Yet, 17 years 
after Mr. Rumsfeld's comments, the Department of Defense has still not 
passed a clean audit, despite the fact that the Pentagon controls 
assets in excess of $2.2 trillion, or roughly 70 percent of what the 
entire Federal Government owns.
  The Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan 
concluded in 2011 that $31 to $60 billion spent in Iraq and Afghanistan 
had been lost to fraud and waste. Children in America go hungry. Young 
people leave school deeply in debt. People in this country cannot 
afford healthcare. But $31 to $60 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan has 
been lost through fraud and waste. Maybe--just maybe--we might want to 
get our priorities right and take a look at that issue.
  Separately, in 2015, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan 
Reconstruction reported that the Pentagon could not account for $45 
billion in funding for reconstruction projects. More recently, an audit 
conducted by Ernst & Young for the Defense Logistics Agency found that 
it could not properly account for $800 million in construction 
projects.
  It is time to hold the Department of Defense to the same level of 
accountability as the rest of the government.
  I would also like to briefly mention an amendment that, to me, makes 
an enormous amount of sense. In this bill, we are spending $716 billion 
in defense spending in order to protect the American people. What this 
bill does is spend that money on the production of fighter planes, 
bombs, guns, missiles, tanks, nuclear weapons, submarines, and other 
weapons of destruction. This amendment I have submitted would reduce 
the defense budget by one-tenth of 1 percent. That is not a massive 
cut. We would use that $700 million to make our country safer by 
reaching out to people throughout the world in ways that bring us 
together through educational and cultural programs.
  At the end of the day, it is not necessarily true that guns and tanks 
and missiles are the only way we will be safe. We will be safer when 
people throughout the world get to know each other and understand the 
common humanity that they have, when kids from Iran and Burlington, VT, 
can sit down and talk about the issues they face.
  This amendment is about helping to make us safer by investing in 
educational programs, allowing our kids to go abroad to learn about 
other countries, and allowing kids from other countries to come into 
the United States. Dialogue alone taking place between Foreign 
Ministers or diplomats at the United Nations is not the only way 
countries can relate to each other. That type of dialogue, that type of 
communication, that type of sharing of who we are should be taking 
place between people throughout the world at the grassroots level--
among young people, among older people, among working people, among 
academics.

  Let's try to destroy the hatred that exists throughout the world 
based on fear and ignorance by allowing people to get to know each 
other. One-tenth of 1 percent would go toward that effort.
  On a separate note, since March of 2015, the U.S. Armed Forces have 
been involved in hostilities between a Saudi-led coalition and the 
Houthis in Yemen. I believe it is long past time that we put an end to 
our unconstitutional and unauthorized participation in this war. To my 
mind, there is no question that U.S. participation in the war in Yemen 
is unauthorized and unconstitutional. It is the Congress of the United 
States that decides whether this country goes to war, not the 
President.
  The truth about Yemen is that U.S. forces have been actively engaged 
in support of the Saudi coalition in this war, providing intelligence 
and aerial refueling of planes whose bombs have killed thousands of 
people and made the current humanitarian crisis in Yemen the worst 
humanitarian crisis on the face of the planet today.
  Even now as I speak, there are reports that an attack on the Yemeni 
port city of Hodeidah by the Saudi-led coalition is imminent. Hodeidah 
is a key entry point for humanitarian aid into Yemen. The U.N. 
Humanitarian Coordinator in the country, Lisa Grande, said last week 
that ``a military attack or siege on Hodeidah will impact hundreds of 
thousands of innocent civilians. . . . In a prolonged worst case, we 
fear that as many as 250,000 people may lose everything--even their 
lives.''
  The Trump administration has tried to justify our involvement in the 
Yemen war as necessary to push back on Iran. Well, another 
administration told us that invading Iraq was necessary to confront al-
Qaida, and another told us that the Vietnam war was necessary to 
contain communism. None of that turned out to be true.
  I believe that we have become far too comfortable with the United 
States engaging in military interventions all over the world. We have 
now been in Afghanistan for 17 years--the longest war in American 
history. We have been in Iraq for 15 years. Our troops are now in Syria 
under what I believe are questionable authorities, and the 
administration has indicated that it may broaden that mission even 
more.
  The time is long overdue for Congress to reassert its constitutional 
responsibility over sending our men and women into war. It is the 
Congress that makes that decision. It couldn't be clearer in the 
Constitution. It is not the President of the United States. That is why 
I have filed a bipartisan amendment, along with Senators Lee, Murphy, 
Warren, and several others, that would put an end to U.S. involvement 
in the war in Yemen.
  Let me conclude by saying this: I think everybody in the Congress 
believes and understands that we need a

[[Page S3734]]

strong defense. There is no debate about that. But we do not need a 
defense budget that is bloated, that is wasteful, and that has in it 
many areas of fraud.
  Let me remind some of my Republican colleagues--it is hard to 
believe, but Dwight D. Eisenhower, who led American troops in World War 
II, was a Republican. This is what he said as he was leaving office, 
which is as true today as when he said it in 1960. He said:

       Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every 
     rocket signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who 
     hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not 
     clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It 
     is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its 
     scientists, the hopes of its children. . . . This is not a 
     way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of 
     threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

  That is what Dwight D. Eisenhower said way back when. Those are words 
that I think we should remember today.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would suggest that the War Powers Act 
does specifically say that the President has the very power to enter 
our troops into combat. It shouldn't be necessary to say.
  People are asking me questions and calling up and asking: Where are 
we on the NDAA? I want to make a few comments about that and then give 
an exact status as to where we are right now.
  We said it before, but we can't overstate this: This NDAA bill is 
going to pass. We know it is going to pass. It has passed for 57 
consecutive years, and it is one that has to pass because this is the 
most important bill of the year.
  Last night, we adopted a managers' package of some 45 bipartisan 
amendments. This is on top of some 300 amendments that we already have 
gone through in the committee.
  I want to say with my counterpart here--Senator Reed--that we are in 
total agreement on the procedures we should be following. We are in 
agreement on an open amendment process. Both the Democratic and 
Republican leadership are committed to an open amendment process. We 
have been trying to set that up, and we have not been shortchanging or 
shortcutting anyone's ability to be heard on their amendment, because 
we have already gone through 300 of these in committee, and then it 
passed unanimously to the floor. That is something that doesn't happen 
very often.
  I hope that we can have more amendments throughout this process. We 
are working to get consent to do that. I think we can make it happen. 
We want an open amendment process. Everybody wants that.
  I recently got back from visiting with American troops around the 
world--Afghanistan, Poland, Kuwait, just to name a few. When I meet 
with these troops, I go and talk to the enlisted guys in the mess hall. 
You can find out a lot more by sitting down and eating with the guys in 
the mess hall in Afghanistan than you can having a hearing in 
Washington, DC. One of the things I learned last week was that our 
troops want to know if we are really doing all we can.
  The proper authorizations, reports, trainings, things like we 
established in this bill would be improved by an open amendment 
process. The open amendment process is the hallmark of our democracy. 
It is very significant, and it is something we need to be doing, and we 
are all in agreement on that.
  Now, the NDAA is also a message to our allies around the world. They 
don't want to have to hedge their bets. It wasn't too long ago we were 
in the South China Sea, and we saw where China is actually building all 
of these islands out there. I contend, it is illegally building them 
because they don't own the land. It is almost as if they are preparing 
for World War III. All of that is going on right now. So it is a very 
hostile world out there.
  We saw the progress the President made yesterday with Kim Jong Un. 
That was nothing short of a miracle that they are sitting down and 
visiting, that they have agreed on certain denuclearization prospects. 
I think they have done a great job, and I am anxious to give this 
President the authority to continue in his work.
  While we continue to work out the amendment process, I ask my 
colleagues to come down to the floor.
  Let me say where we are right now. Senator Corker is blocking the 
consideration of all amendments, unless he receives a vote on his 
amendment. I appreciate very much the friendly attitude he has had 
toward this. He feels very strongly, but there is a blue-slip problem 
with this; that is, it is not going to be considered by the House 
because it is a revenue issue we are dealing with, and that is why it 
is a blue-slip issue. I know Senator Corker did want to correct that 
last night, and he attempted to do it. I have not heard that he has 
been able to successfully do it, and I don't believe he has.
  There are several already who have said, in the event Corker tries to 
bring it up for a vote, they will block that vote. So that vote would 
be blocked.
  Senator Paul and Senator Lee have amendments that are similar to each 
other. Each one is blocking unless he receives a vote. So we have 
Senator Lee saying, unless he gets a vote on his amendment, he is going 
to block anyone else from having an amendment or getting a vote; in 
other words, no amendments. Senator Paul, the same thing, no 
amendments. Now, their amendments are similar to each other, but there 
are some slight differences, but that is where they are right now.
  However, Senator Graham and Senator Grassley have said, in the event 
Senator Paul or Senator Lee puts their amendment forward, they would 
stop their amendments from coming up. So that is where we are. We have 
the Corker amendment, and it is one that has a blue-slip problem. We 
have the indefinite detention amendment by Paul, and both Graham and 
Grassley have said they would object if that comes up for a vote. So we 
can't have a vote on that. There is nothing we can do except get them 
together to decide.
  This significant bill we are talking about is the most significant 
bill of the year, and we can't move on it until--and, I agree, there is 
a problem. I have talked to a lot of our Members who are fairly new 
Members, and they talk about the Senate process and that one person can 
stop everything from happening. Well, it has been that way a long time, 
and this is where we seem to have to pay dearly for it. I have to say 
this also because many times on legislation we have on the floor, it is 
Democrat versus Republican, Republican versus Democrat. Well, Senator 
Reed and I don't have any disagreement. We disagree on some of the 
issues we are going to be dealing with as we debate amendments--and 
that is going to happen this week--but we both agree the other has the 
chance to present his best case and try to win on the issues.
  So that is going on, and this is one of the rare cases where I guess 
all the problems we are having objecting to amendments are all coming 
from the Republican side. I hope our Republicans will get together with 
each other and determine what areas they actually will be objecting to. 
That is where we are right now.
  Let me, one more time, commend Senator Reed for the cooperation we 
are getting between the Democrats and Republicans on this, the most 
significant bill of the year.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Oklahoma for 
being very thoughtful and informing us all of the current procedural 
status. We both hope to be able to work through another package of 
managers' amendments that could be submitted.
  Looking at the amendments we have seen so far, regardless of what 
position you take on their disposition, they all seem to be serious, 
substantive and, in our view, worthy of a vote. We just have to work 
out the procedure to get to those votes. There may be something in the 
future that is offered that seems to be very difficult, and I will not 
say we have not, in the past, on our side stood up and said we object. 
That is one of the prerogatives.
  At this juncture, Senator Inhofe and I seem to be in harmony trying 
to find ways to vote for the proposals we have seen presented to us and 
ask and request votes on the proposals by our colleagues.
  With that, I know Senator Inhofe and I will continue to work to see 
if we can move this process forward.

[[Page S3735]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                            Trump-Kim Summit

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to raise my concerns 
over the outcome of the summit between the United States and North 
Korea.
  Now, after witnessing heated rhetoric from both sides, the unexpected 
turn toward diplomacy by President Trump and Kim Jong Un was, by all 
accounts, a very welcome development. As there is no military solution 
to the North Korean nuclear crisis, I was encouraged to see direct 
engagement, and I have long advocated for this approach. However, I am 
concerned that the agreement signed this morning does little to address 
the threats and challenges we face.
  First, the text of the statement was the most vague and least 
detailed of any signed by North Korea over the past three decades. 
Despite his claims to the contrary, President Trump got a weaker deal, 
with fewer commitments, than any of his predecessors. Nowhere does the 
document explain what ``complete denuclearization of the Korean 
Peninsula'' means. For example, Kim Jong Un can easily interpret the 
language to mean he will only relinquish his nuclear weapons once the 
United States does the same. After all, history shows us that North 
Korea interprets the term ``Korean Peninsula'' to include any U.S. 
nuclear weapon capable of striking North Korea. The loopholes in the 
agreement, it seems, are big enough to fly nuclear missiles through.
  By contrast, previous agreements were much more stringent. The 1992 
joint declaration signed by North and South Korea, for example, 
included conditions such as ``South and North Korea shall not test, 
manufacture, produce, receive, possess, store, deploy, or use nuclear 
weapons,'' and ``South and North Korea shall not possess nuclear 
reprocessing and uranium enrichment facilities.'' Unfortunately, 
neither of those commitments appears in the latest agreement. The 
language instead suggests something worrying.
  As the administration must have realized this agreement was not as 
strong as the previous ones, it appears it was unable to convince North 
Korea to adopt tougher, more detailed commitments. If true, we should 
take the hint that North Korea has not yet felt the economic pressure 
necessary to compel it to accept our definition of 
``denuclearization''--one where the Kim regime relinquishes its nuclear 
weapons and its means to produce more.
  It appears, Kim Jong Un, having stockpiled a wide range of illicit 
and dangerous weapons, believes he is negotiating from a position of 
strength, rather than from a position of weakness. While the Trump 
administration said it has imposed maximum pressure, the truth is, we 
haven't yet reached that level that could be called maximum pressure.
  North Korea must understand that even if China eases the pressure, we 
in Congress are ready to step in to tighten the screws on the North 
Korean economy.
  President Trump appears to have made a second unforced error. By 
agreeing to curtail our joint military exercises with the South 
Koreans, President Trump let Kim Jong Un dictate our military 
activities with other countries. By proclaiming that our exercises are 
``provocative,'' he has adopted the North Korea propaganda. By 
proclaiming that our exercises are ``expensive,'' he showed that he 
does not grasp our alliance commitments. Yes, some military exercises 
are costly, but as any businessperson should know, the more important 
indicator is value. If a high cost is outweighed by even greater 
benefits, then we should be willing to pay the cost.
  Our military exercises improve the readiness of our forces to deter 
and, if necessary, defeat North Korean aggression. Will North Korea be 
sufficiently deterred without U.S. and South Korean forces standing 
shoulder to shoulder? Will the chance of conflict decrease?
  It was telling--and very regrettable--that the South Korean 
Government needed to issue a statement asking the Trump administration 
to clarify its comment about military exercises. It seems the Blue 
House in South Korea was not consulted.
  What signal does it send to China that our presence in the region, 
which has helped keep peace and stability for decades, may be 
sacrificed to save a bit of money? The Trump administration might have 
unwittingly given a green light to China to pursue more aggressive 
actions in the region.
  Now, I have been warning that we must watch out for the old Kim 
family playbook--one that has been used throughout the Clinton, Bush, 
and Obama administrations. Well, the Kim family playbook was on the 
field yet again last night, and President Trump fell for all of the 
plays.
  As it has done in the past, North Korea showed it is trying to, No. 
1, front load the rewards and delay concessions. As indicated by the 
post-summit statement from China's Foreign Ministry, Pyongyang and 
Beijing already appear to be working together to remove sanctions 
despite the lack of tangible evidence of denuclearization.
  No. 2, from the Kim family playbook, use sleight of hand to make 
irrelevant actions seem meaningful. By supposedly demolishing its 
nuclear test site and a missile engine test stand, North Korea is 
claiming it has made real progress, despite not destroying a single 
warhead or missile.
  No. 3, in the Kim family playbook, exploit ambiguity. The Trump-Kim 
agreement is so vague that it imposes no clear requirements on North 
Korea. What we should want is reconciliation, not repetition of what 
has happened decade after decade when the Kim family uses its playbook 
to delay concessions they make while front-end loading the rewards they 
receive.
  We can all agree that we need a plan to stop North Korea's plutonium 
production and uranium enrichment, that suspends and then eliminates 
its ballistic missile program, that permanently dismantles and removes 
all of its nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and that 
implements a compliance inspection program with a strong verification 
regime--suspend, eliminate, dismantle, remove, and verify every single 
step of the way.
  Most of us agree on what a deal should look like, but the trick is 
figuring out how to get there, and the hard work lies ahead to 
successfully navigate the hazards.
  No. 1, do not sell out our allies. We must not allow North Korea to 
believe the alliance framework, which has served as the foundation for 
regional peace and security, is anything other than 
unshakeable. Unfortunately, South Korea seemed to be caught off guard 
by President Trump's announcement on military exercises.

  No. 2, do not prematurely release the pressure valve. China, North 
Korea's chief enabler, already is easing pressure on North Korea. North 
Korean goods already are becoming more abundant in China, despite being 
banned by United Nations Security Council resolutions, and immediately 
following the summit, the Chinese Foreign Ministry suggested making 
adjustments to existing sanctions on North Korea.
  If China wants to be taken seriously as a responsible global power, 
it cannot shirk its duties to enforce sanctions on serial violators 
like North Korea. If North Korea backslides at any point, China must be 
tougher on North Korea, including cutting off all of the crude oil 
exports to the North Korean regime, which still flows in every day from 
China.
  No. 3, focus on the threat at hand. North Korea's nuclear warheads 
and other dangerous weapons and their delivery systems are real 
threats. The administration must not fall for North Korea's inevitable 
theatrics and false concessions, as we cannot afford to be sidetracked. 
After all, nothing would stop North Korea from conducting another 
nuclear or missile test if it even believes its warheads and missiles 
need more testing.
  No. 4, build American diplomatic capability and infrastructure. 
Diplomacy is a team sport, and no matter what commitments leaders make, 
it is only through a well-staffed and well-resourced professional 
diplomatic core that it becomes a reality. The State Department must 
have the resources it needs to conduct American foreign policy around 
the globe and especially with regard to Asia and North Korea.
  The outcome of this summit clearly indicates how much we need the 
advice of career diplomats and technical experts.
  And, No. 5, come to Congress. To achieve a lasting solution to the 
crisis,

[[Page S3736]]

the Trump administration must work with Congress to shape the contours 
of any future deal. Any final agreement should take the form of a 
treaty, to be ratified by the U.S. Senate, so as to increase its shelf 
life.
  Without following principles like this and without a clear 
understanding of our previous diplomatic efforts with North Korea, we 
could fail. We owe it to our fellow Americans to successfully reduce 
the threats we face because the threats from North Korea are 
significant.
  Unlike other countries with nuclear programs, North Korea already 
possesses thermonuclear warheads and the ballistic missiles to deliver 
them. It has shorter range missiles that cast a dark shadow over our 
allies, South Korea and Japan. Pyongyang possesses some of the foulest 
toxins on the planet, and it brutally represses, imprisons, tortures, 
and kills its own citizens. So we must address these myriad threats.
  As it turns out, negotiating with North Korea is harder than the 
President thought. So we must continue to squeeze the regime so that it 
cannot access the resources necessary to maintain or expand its 
military capabilities. After all, a combination of direct engagement, 
backed by pressure, is the only solution to the North Korean threat to 
the United States, our allies, and to the broader region.
  Now, Mr. President, I would like to spend a few minutes discussing 
amendments that I am filing to the National Defense Authorization Act. 
My amendments would help to reduce the nuclear dangers the world faces 
today and in the future by either canceling or redirecting funds the 
Trump administration would use to develop a new so-called low-yield 
nuclear weapon toward preparing for nonproliferation activities that 
will be essential to helping denuclearize North Korea.
  I also want to thank my colleagues Senators Elizabeth Warren and Jack 
Reed, who have been tremendous leaders on the Armed Services Committee, 
in working to ensure that proper congressional authorization is secured 
for any new or modified nuclear weapons. There is no more important job 
for Congress than stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, and I thank 
Senators Warren and Reed for their leadership and commitment to this 
important task.
  Let's be clear. When the Trump administration talks about a so-called 
low-yield nuclear weapon, they are still referring to nuclear weapons 
comparable to the nuclear bomb that destroyed Hiroshima in the Second 
World War. There is no such thing as a low-yield nuclear weapon. A 
nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon, and they are fundamentally 
different than any other tool of war. They destabilize. They 
annihilate. They force others to do the same. This is where the term 
``MAD,'' or mutually assured destruction, comes from.
  For these reasons, they should never be used, and we should never 
falter in the ongoing struggle to reduce and eventually eliminate the 
danger nuclear weapons pose to the world.
  But, instead, the Trump administration wants new nuclear weapons, 
and, unfortunately, its efforts to develop new, more usable low-yield 
nuclear weapons, like the W76-2, seem to be driven more by political 
requirements than by military requirements. Our military commanders 
didn't ask for this or any other nuclear weapon. Instead, the Trump 
administration told them that they were getting this new low-yield 
nuclear weapon in its Nuclear Posture Review earlier this year, which 
needlessly expanded our nuclear warfighting capabilities and threatened 
new scenarios under which we might use our nuclear weapons to respond. 
The Nuclear Posture Review called for new low-yield weapons, like the 
W76-2, for unretiring old, Cold War-era ones like the B-83 megaton 
gravity bomb and expanding the scenarios under which we might respond 
with nuclear weapons.
  We already have hundreds of low-yield nuclear weapons, including the 
B61 gravity bomb and an air-launched cruise missile, and we will spend 
hundreds of billions of dollars to upgrade these systems, as well as to 
develop a new stealth bomber and fighter aircraft to deliver them, as 
part of the existing nuclear modernization program.
  Given this current capacity, as well as the lack of any documents, 
reports, or studies justifying the sudden, previously unrecognized, 
need for a new low-yield weapon as part of America's nuclear deterrent, 
it is hard to understand why we need to spend more money to develop a 
low-yield nuclear weapon that will add additional strain to a nuclear 
complex that is already operating at levels unseen since the Cold War 
and that could jeopardize the existing modernization program which 
enjoys bipartisan support and which our military leaders have said is 
the most important nuclear requirement for the military. It makes no 
sense to spend more money to develop a low-yield nuclear weapon, 
dangerously indistinguishable from a strategic one, especially when our 
military does not need it. They did not request it.
  That is why I have fought this weapon from the very start and am 
offering an amendment to focus on funding activities that will be 
necessary to reduce the nuclear danger to the world--whether now or in 
the future--instead of adding to it by developing a completely 
unjustified low-yield weapon that adds to the risk that we can actually 
contemplate fighting a winnable nuclear war. That makes no sense 
whatsoever--a new nuclear weapon that the Pentagon did not ask for. We 
should be heading in the opposite direction. That is the signal that we 
should be sending to the rest of the world.
  With regard to the summit, my hope is that there will be some details 
that indicate what the concessions have been made by Kim to the United 
States and to the world. Thus far, there is no evidence of that. I fear 
that the only thing that will last from this summit will be the photo, 
because we will not have had the concessions made that, on a verifiable 
basis can, in fact, be confirmed and that make the Korean Peninsula and 
make the world a safer place to be.
  So today is a momentous day. This will be a momentous week on the 
floor of the Senate, as well, in the debate of this new armed services 
bill, and I am looking forward to this incredibly important discussion.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


Congratulating Mitch McConnell as the Longest Serving Senate Republican 
                                 Leader

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to mark an important 
milestone for our friend Senator Mitch McConnell, who has now become 
the longest serving Republican leader, surpassing Senator Bob Dole of 
Kansas, who served from 1985 to 1996.
  I told somebody in the press yesterday that Senator McConnell has 
done it the old-fashioned way: He earned it. He earned this role as our 
leader and the respect, certainly, that goes along with it.
  He served as minority leader beginning in 2007, and I had the honor 
of presenting him with a copy of his maiden speech as Republican leader 
back then. That was at the beginning of the 110th Congress, and he has 
served as either majority leader or minority leader ever since. What a 
historic tenure his has been, and what a privilege it has been for me 
to serve alongside him since I came to the Senate in 2003, but 
especially in my role as whip, I have had the opportunity to work with 
the leader on a daily basis, and it has been one of the highlights of 
my Senate career.
  Senator McConnell is trusted. We all know he is whip smart. He is an 
impressive strategist. He understands the Senate better than anybody 
else here, and time and again, he has demonstrated what leaders always 
need to demonstrate, and that is a remarkable degree of humility, 
sometimes preferring to work for the betterment of the conference and 
the country behind the scenes rather than enjoy the spotlight on the 
frontlines. That takes a remarkable sense of self-confidence and team 
spirit that not everybody has. It is true that sometimes he is soft-
spoken, but I can assure you that he is never afraid to take a hard 
line when absolutely necessary. But more than that, he is a rare 
example of what a Senator ought to be, what a true public servant ought 
to be.

[[Page S3737]]

  As majority leader, Senator McConnell is a member of a storied group 
that includes the likes of Senator Charles Curtis, the first official 
majority leader of the Senate, who was famous for his Native American 
ancestry and racing horses, I am told. The` group includes Robert Taft 
of Ohio, who would work late into the night studying the rules of the 
Senate in order to outmaneuver his opponents. It includes Lyndon Baines 
Johnson from my State, who would go on to become President, as well as 
Mike Mansfield from Montana, Johnson's whip, who went on to serve as 
majority leader for 16 years. In more recent times, there have been 
great statesmen, such as Bob Dole, Trent Lott, and Bill Frist.
  We all know that Senator McConnell is an avid student of history, and 
he has learned a lot from all of these leaders--their example, their 
ups and downs, their successes, and their challenges--and in a sense, 
he stands on their shoulders. The experience, the example, and the 
great leadership each of them demonstrated have benefited all of us but 
nobody more than our leader Senator McConnell.
  In today's world, the qualities embodied by all of these men is not 
very widely understood, but we have to look no further than Senator 
McConnell to see what that leadership looks like. One thing it requires 
is recognizing your role but also respecting the role of other Members 
in the conference.
  As I said, Senator McConnell deeply understands the nature of the 
Senate and his position, and he illustrated this when he spoke at the 
beginning of the 114th Congress.
  In his first speech, he recognized that the American people were 
anxious about the direction of our country. He mentioned the decline of 
civic trust in our national institutions. He expressed concern about 
his fellow Americans feeling as though government was somehow 
uninterested or incapable of addressing their concerns--a government 
that seemed to be working for itself instead of for them. Those were 
some of the sentiments and concerns he expressed at the time.
  Sensing this unease, articulating the problem was just the beginning 
of Senator McConnell's setting out to fix it. What Americans wanted 
then is what they want now: They want a government that works. They 
want, as Senator McConnell called it, a government of the 21st century, 
one that functions with efficiency and accountability, competence and 
purpose. That is the kind of government our leader has worked 
tirelessly to promote. As he has told us time and again, what he is 
interested in is results, not show votes. Many of us from time to time 
have said: Why can't we have a vote on this or that? He reminds us that 
what we need to produce is results, not theatrics.
  He has taken steps to return the Senate to regular order, which 
simply means getting the Senate back to work according to its own rules 
and traditions. He has gotten the committees to work again. The Senate 
simply does not work unless our committee structure works, because then 
power is diffused among all Senators, and they each get to contribute 
their piece of a solution to a problem. He has committed himself and 
the Senate to a more rational, functioning appropriations process--
something we all can applaud.
  In my opinion, it has been his never-ending quest for this body he 
loves to function not just ably but at a consistently high level. That 
has been his greatest contribution to the people he serves.
  Leader McConnell is concerned about the policy priorities of our 
party, of course, and he works doggedly to advance a conservative, 
right-of-center agenda, but he also cares deeply about this institution 
that he has committed so much of his life to serving and the pivotal 
role the Senate has always played in American history. He cares about 
upholding the rules and traditions of this body, not for their own sake 
but because they have simply withstood the test of time.
  We have made great strides this Congress under Leader McConnell's 
leadership. We passed the first overhaul of the Tax Code in more than 
three decades and allowed Americans to keep more of their hard-earned 
paychecks. We reformed Dodd-Frank legislation, freeing up banks and 
credit unions to better serve their communities by giving small 
businesses access to the credit they need in order to start that 
business and grow. We rolled back overly burdensome regulations and 
confirmed 39 judicial nominees, including a Supreme Court Justice and 
21 circuit court judges. As Senator McConnell likes to remind us, these 
judges will serve long after this President's term of office and 
perhaps even our time in the Senate.
  This spring, we kept a solemn commitment we made to our veterans by 
making sure they have access to the healthcare choices which they need 
and which we have solemnly committed to provide. None of this would 
have been possible without Leader McConnell's deftly navigating around 
the stop signs and roadblocks that naturally occur in a place like the 
Senate and refusing to yield along the way to unprecedented levels of 
partisan obstruction.
  But we must not forget that Senator McConnell is a leader not only of 
our conference, but he also serves primarily on behalf of the people of 
Kentucky. He doesn't leave his full-time job behind when he puts on his 
leadership hat. He somehow has to balance the needs of both his 
constituents in Kentucky and the larger needs of the Senate and of the 
country as a whole. It goes without saying that balancing those 
competing demands is extraordinarily difficult. It is not for the faint 
of heart. But somehow Senator McConnell makes it look easy. He doesn't 
even seem to break a sweat, amazingly so. That is because people like 
Senator McConnell are versatile and energetic.
  On behalf of his fellow Kentuckians, he has recently championed the 
cause of international adoptions, ensured a healthcare fix for more 
than 3,000 retired coal miners, and supported military installations, 
such as Fort Campbell and Fort Knox. He has gotten more resources to 
strengthen Kentucky universities. He has helped his State combat the 
scourge of opioid addiction. He even helped a mother get her child back 
after she was abducted and taken to West Africa. These are just some of 
the recent ways he has served his State.
  As we know, Senator McConnell joined the Senate in 1984, so one could 
literally write volumes about his many other contributions over the 
past 3\1/2\ decades. He once said of the Senate what is no less true of 
all of us: We are all imperfect at moments, but we were permanently 
endowed with high purpose.
  For those familiar with the story of his own life, this sense of high 
purpose was seen early on. After overcoming polio at a young age, 
Leader McConnell went on to attend the University of Louisville, where 
he served as student body president and where he urged his classmates 
to march with Martin Luther King, Jr., on behalf of civil rights. He 
then became president of the student bar association in law school. 
This man was clearly born to lead.
  What was clear early in his life remains clear today: Leader 
McConnell is simply relentless. He never stops working, and in his 
view, we--both as a conference and a country--still have miles to go 
before we sleep.
  In addition to confirming the President's nominees, we have a packed 
to-do list this year that includes finishing the Defense bill this 
week, passing water infrastructure reform, as well as a farm bill, 
combating the opioid crisis, and reauthorizing the Federal Aviation 
Administration and the Coast Guard. None of this is easy, but one thing 
is certain: With Leader McConnell at the helm and with the hard work of 
those of us here in the Senate--on a bipartisan basis, hopefully--we 
will continue to make steady progress on behalf of the American people 
we serve.
  Thank you, Senator McConnell, for your example. Thank you for your 
mentorship and for your friendship, and congratulations once again on 
reaching this historic milestone today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, while the Senator from Kentucky is here, I 
want to get his attention and say that the very laudatory comments the 
majority whip has said about the Senator--I can add to the accolades 
for the Senator from Kentucky by pointing out that he and I have a 
common trait, a common denominator between us: We both married above 
ourselves. His wife, the Honorable Elaine Chao, now our Secretary of 
Transportation, former

[[Page S3738]]

Secretary of Labor--they are truly one of the remarkable couples of 
political leadership in the Nation's Capital. I congratulate him on the 
comments by the majority whip today.


                              Gun Violence

  Mr. President, I am wearing this ribbon because the Orlando community 
is mourning once again. Last night, there was another shooting, and a 
number of people have been killed again. Today marks 2 years since the 
tragic massacre at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, 2 years since a 
gunman walked into the club with a Sig Sauer MCX assault rifle and 
killed 49 innocent people. They were there celebrating Latin American 
night at a gay nightclub. It was one of the deadliest mass shootings in 
modern U.S. history with 49 deaths, only to be eclipsed by the massacre 
of 58 people a year ago in Las Vegas. In the carnage, a number of 
people were severely wounded, and those who did not actually have 
physical wounds have the mental and emotional wounds that are not 
unlike the PTSD that our soldiers suffer from and have to be treated 
for for years and years. That is true in the Orlando community as a 
result of the massacre at the Pulse nightclub. Orlando is mourning 
again at this 2-year mark.
  There were some incredible things that came out of this. I have never 
seen the Orlando community so united, with the leadership of the entire 
community, regardless of their politics, wearing these kinds of ribbons 
to point out their unity and using the phrase ``Orlando Strong.''
  Today is a day to pause and honor the victims and the survivors and 
to once again thank the first responders who put their lives on the 
line to save so many more. Law enforcement was magnificent. The SWAT 
team was magnificent. I talked to the SWAT team. There was one of the 
SWAT members who actually had stitches across his forehead. But for 
millimeters, he would have been dead. That was one of the rounds from 
the assault rifle.
  I talked to the trauma team at the Orlando regional hospital. A 
trauma unit just so happened to be about 10 or 15 blocks from the Pulse 
nightclub. But for that trauma unit, those trauma surgeons and their 
courage in trying to get victims stabilized, there would have been more 
deaths.
  This is a day to look back on what we have actually done to prevent 
another such tragedy from ever happening again. Unfortunately, not much 
had happened until a bold, very courageous group of students after the 
massacre in Parkland, FL, at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School stood 
up and said: We are going to make a difference.
  The Orlando community is once again mourning today because last night 
a gunman shot a police officer and then killed four young, innocent 
children whom he was holding hostage in an apartment. It has happened 
again. These children, all under the age of 12--one was just a 1-year-
old--were killed by a man who, like so many others, shouldn't have had 
a gun in the first place. When are we going to say enough is enough?
  At some point Congress has to accept the fact that the only way to 
change the current path is that we, as a society, are going to have to 
take a step in the right direction to do the right thing. Yet you can 
remember that a couple of years ago, in this body we tried to pass a 
bill which said that if you were on the terrorist watch list, it was 
going to be the law of the land that you could not buy a gun. Mind you, 
if they are on the terrorist watch list, we think they are potentially 
a terrorist and therefore cannot get on an airplane and fly on a 
commercial airline, but we could not pass that to say that they could 
not buy or acquire a gun.
  So what we see that destroys our communities--we are going to have to 
do more than increase security at schools with some wrongheaded 
attempts to arm teachers. First of all, the teachers don't want to be 
armed in schools. I will tell you who else doesn't want them to be 
armed--the SWAT team that has to storm the school building looking for 
the shooter, and then if they come upon a teacher with a gun, they 
could think that teacher is the shooter.
  We have to do more than increase funding for mental health or expand 
background checks, which we desperately have to do. We need universal, 
comprehensive background checks that would pick up red flags about 
mental health issues like those of the Parkland shooter. We have to do 
more than raise the minimum age to buy a gun or ban the sale of bump 
stocks, which makes a semiautomatic assault rifle into an automatic--a 
true military weapon.
  At some point, Congress has to start standing up for the people it 
represents. It has to turn a deaf ear to the special interests that 
have locked down their votes here because they want to sell more guns. 
At some point, Congress has to stand up to the NRA, which represents 
the gun manufacturers--not the target shooters, not the hunters. It 
represents the gun manufacturers to sell more guns.
  I say this as a fellow who grew up on a ranch. I have had guns all of 
my life and have hunted all my life. I still hunt with my son. An 
assault rifle like an AR-15 is not for hunting; it is for killing. We 
have to face the fact of banning the sale of military assault rifle 
types and the long clips of some 30 rounds of ammunition.
  The attack at the Pulse nightclub 2 years ago was an attack of both 
terror and hate, and it was an attack on our fundamental American 
values of dignity and equality. It was an attack designed to divide us 
as a nation, but what we saw instead was an entire community and entire 
country come together united.
  In remembrance of the victims today in Orlando, you will see this 
ribbon worn by many, many citizens in the community. On the 2-year date 
of that horrific event, I want us to come together again in the same 
way we did after Pulse in Orlando, the same way we did after Parkland 
but, this time, not to help each other mourn to get through the tragedy 
but to require real change to make sure that it is going to be more 
difficult for this to happen again.
  Aren't people beginning to realize there is way too much gun violence 
in this country--and a lot of it since Sandy Hook Elementary School in 
Connecticut? In my State of Florida, just this year, we have seen 17 
students gunned down at Marjory Stoneman Douglas. Just in this year, 1 
month after that, we saw another student shot at Forest High School in 
Ocala. Just last month, a sheriff's deputy was shot and killed in Lake 
Placid. Then, this week, we have awakened to the news of an officer 
shot in Orlando and the deaths of four young children who were held 
hostage.
  We should not allow these shootings to become the new normal in this 
country. This Senator has been involved in a lot of bipartisan bills to 
prohibit known or suspected terrorists from purchasing firearms, to 
empower our family members and law enforcement to take guns away from 
relatives who pose a danger to themselves and others who bring up these 
so-called red flags. These are sensible, bipartisan options to help 
make our communities safer, yet there has been little movement in the 
Senate to proceed on these proposals.
  The student leaders of the March For Our Lives organization have said 
it. The parents of the children at Sandy Hook have said it. Those who 
have lost loved ones to suicide have said it. Two years after Pulse, 
our resolve to end gun violence must be stronger than ever. It is time 
for us to act. We realize that with practical politics, it is going to 
be very, very difficult to move legislation, but we have to keep 
trying.
  Let's work on some real bipartisan, commonsense solutions to make our 
communities safer. Let's work on how we can prevent these assault 
weapons from getting into the wrong hands. Let's work together on how 
we can stop massacres that continue to plague this country. We owe it 
to the victims of the massacres and to their families. We owe it to 
every American, who has the right to live without being in fear of this 
violence. Just ask the students in the schools of America today if they 
fear that violence.
  Really, isn't enough enough?
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________