[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 99 (Thursday, June 14, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3932-S3943]
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 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 year, 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.
       Reed amendment No. 2842 (to amendment No. 2366), to require 
     the authorization of appropriation of amounts for the 
     development of new or modified nuclear weapons.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first, let me make sure we get into the 
Record as accurately as I am saying right now, to Abe Schumer, that his 
little boy's most predictable adversary wishes him today a happy 
birthday.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. INHOFE. That was very touching. Thank you very much, I say to my 
friend, Senator Schumer.
  Mr. President, I want to start today by giving an update as to where 
we are in the process for the NDAA.
  At 10:30 a.m., which is coming up shortly, we are going to have a 
cloture vote on Toomey's amendment that applies the REINS Act to the 
CFIUS rulemaking process. We all know what that is. We all know there 
is opposition. If that vote fails, we will immediately roll into a 
cloture vote on the substitute amendment. That is our amendment, which 
we will be considering as the bill. Then, we hope to invoke cloture on 
the underlying bill this afternoon before we head out of town. If we 
are able to do that, we will have the final passage vote on Monday when 
we return.
  We are also working diligently as we speak to clear an additional 
managers' package. One of the things we were talking about, and I have 
been somewhat critical of some of my fellow Members, is the fact that 
we have been operating under rules--and we have gone through this in 
years past; it is almost predictable that one individual will try to 
use this bill as a must-pass bill. Everyone knows it is going to pass; 
it has passed for the last 57 years. So, logically, it is where you put 
an amendment that is very difficult to pass. I don't blame them for 
that. I would do the same thing. Nonetheless, I wouldn't do it if it 
caused all other amendments to not be considered.
  I am hoping we will be able to have a managers' package. I have 
reason to believe and I am optimistic about that, and it would be a 
great thing to have. I don't know how many of these amendments would 
ultimately be in the managers' package, but we are talking about a lot 
of amendments, and we have already cleared many amendments.
  Anyone who criticizes the process that we are going through right now 
may not be aware of how many amendments we have considered in our work 
on this in committee. We are talking about some 300 amendments, and 
since that time, countless amendments have been agreed to on both 
sides. That is where we are today.
  It will be a great victory for all of us in this Chamber if we can 
get the managers' amendments agreed to, and hopefully that will be 
true.
  I can't neglect that today is the Army's 243rd birthday. I actually 
attended a birthday party for the U.S. Army quite a while before a lot 
of you were even born, when I was in Fort Lee, VA, in the U.S. Army. We 
would have been celebrating the 180th birthday at that time. Back when 
we were celebrating the 180th birthday, I never dreamed I would be 
around to celebrate the 243rd birthday of the U.S. Army.
  The Army is actually older than this country is. In 1775, brave 
Americans joined the cause to fight for the life and liberty we hold so 
dear now. It is the same motivation that still inspires the service of 
the men and women who join the Army and, indeed, all of the service 
branches today.
  It is for those men and women that we are here today. That is what 
this is all about--the NDAA that we are considering today. It has 
provisions for individuals; it has specific provisions for the men and 
women on the ground in harm's way, including the largest pay raise in 
10 years. It means more opportunities for qualified servicemembers to 
receive promotions throughout their careers. I think it is a 
recognition that in the time in which this is taking place, there is a 
new emphasis on defending America.
  I don't say this critically, but the last administration had a policy 
which said that we can't put any more money in sequestration for the 
military unless we do the same for nondefense spending. A lot of people 
agreed with that. I don't agree with that.
  We are now at the point where we have broken parity, so I say to 
individuals who are making career decisions: Help is on its way; this 
is a good time to do it. Part of that is because of the modernization 
of the personnel system in this legislation.
  It also authorizes $40 million for supplemental impact aid support. 
With an expansion of some military activities, individuals who are 
involved are exempt from the taxes that support our schools. That is a 
problem we have. Every State has a problem, but it is probably more 
severe in Oklahoma than elsewhere. I would like to let individuals in 
my State of Oklahoma, at five different installations, know that help 
is on its way, and we are going to try to do a better job with the 
supplemental impact aid than we have done in the past.
  This bill increases funding for the personnel, improving the quality 
of life for the forces and their families. Most importantly, it 
increases end strength. It is not as much as I would like to see, but 
it does grow the force, so servicemembers can have sufficient time to 
be with their families and train before redeploying.
  That is what we are doing right now. It is going to take a lot of 
additional funding. We are authorizing that funding, and we are going 
to be rebuilding.
  I have to remind people in the outside world who are not here in 
Washington that we do have a problem. The assumption that America has 
the best of everything at one time was true, but it is not true. I 
always document that because it is a pretty strong statement.
  Right now, if we look at our artillery in terms of rapid fire and 
range, both Russia and China have better range and rapid fire than we 
have in the United States. We know we have done nothing with our 
nuclear arsenal for the last 10 years. At the same time, our triad 
system has been static, and Russia and China have improved theirs. They 
are ahead of us in that area.
  There is a new type of defense system that actually has a defense 
mechanism that goes five times the speed of sound. It is still in the 
experimental stage, but both China and Russia are ahead of us. The bill 
we are considering now, ironically on the birthday of the U.S. Army, is 
going to correct that. It is going to take a little while, but it is 
ultimately going to correct that.
  We have 20 or more minutes before we cast the two very significant 
votes

[[Page S3933]]

that I just mentioned. This is everyone's opportunity to be heard. I am 
hoping, and I really believe, that individuals who have been somewhat 
of an obstacle in the past are cooperating at a new level, and I am 
very excited about that. I hope we will be able to stay on the schedule 
I just articulated a few minutes ago.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, we have two votes coming up. The first 
vote is the one I strongly support. With this amendment, Senator Toomey 
is looking to do something that has been very successful; that is, to 
give a little more opportunity for us to oversee some of the 
overregulations that are out there.
  I was very pleased to have the first CRA that was mine, which I 
authored, to be enacted into law. We have now had 16 CRAs, 
Congressional Review Act. It is interesting because we went 20 years 
without having any of them that were taken, and now we have been 
successful in doing that. It is a stronger position for those of us in 
the Senate to be able to get some things done. We can safeguard the 
importance of deregulation, especially for the future, by passing this 
amendment today.
  Senator Toomey's amendment will give congressional oversight over the 
CFIUS rulemaking process, which I think everyone in here knows needs to 
be done and will be done. It will not slow down the implementation 
process and still grants CFIUS the necessary flexibility to enact in 
the name of national security.
  After that, we are going to have the vote that is going to allow us 
to move to a package, and I am hoping we will be able to do it because 
there has been a lot of talk about not being able to get an open 
amendment process. We have not had one, and that is unfortunate. If we 
can get this package of amendments put together--there are going to be 
quite a few of them--all of them will be cleared on both sides. It is 
going to be one that people are going to be very anxious to get done. 
It is going to give voice to many of the Members, probably some 40 
Members who otherwise would not have the opportunity to have their 
amendment agreed to or at least heard. I think we will have that 
opportunity. It is very important we do it now. Hopefully, that package 
of amendments is going to be one that will be favorably approved.
  With 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. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2700

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I appreciate this broad support we have 
seen for plugging the holes in our ability to evaluate foreign 
investment with regard to national security risks in the United States. 
We know China, for example, has been quite explicit about what it is 
trying to do to surpass the United States economically and militarily, 
and it has been very aggressive and very strategic in the way it has 
tried to acquire intellectual property and know-how through foreign 
investment in the United States. That is why this legislation is so 
important.
  I admire the Senator from Pennsylvania as one of the most principled 
conservatives in this body and in Congress, but he and I differ over 
whether the REINS Act, which would require up-or-down votes on 
implementing regulations, should be a part of the implementation of 
this national security legislation. I never dreamed we would do that in 
a national security context as opposed to doing it in economic and 
environmental legislation. Reluctantly, I oppose the amendment of the 
Senator from Pennsylvania and encourage all of our colleagues to do the 
same.
  I conclude by saying, I share his concerns when it comes to using 
national security as a pretext on economic legislation and trade 
issues, and I look forward to continuing to work with him and all of my 
other colleagues outside of the national security context to make sure 
we support free and fair trade--trade that protects U.S. interests. 
With the overstepping of the regulatory bounds by the executive branch 
on occasion, I am all for rolling that back when we can but not in a 
national security context like this.
  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. TOOMEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
body for 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I make the case that this amendment we 
are about to vote on is the simple question of whether we think we 
ought to be accountable, that we ought to take responsibility for the 
legislative authority we delegate.
  Rulemaking is a legislative function. In this bill--the CFIUS reform 
bill that is in the NDAA--and on many other occasions, we delegate a 
portion of that authority--we delegate the rulemaking--to the executive 
branch, which is fine. Yet we have a responsibility to make sure it 
gets it right, this administration and future administrations.
  This amendment has a mechanism that requires a simple up-or-down 
vote--it can't be filibustered; it can't be delayed; it is a simple 
majority vote--to affirm that the rulemaking will actually achieve the 
legislative attempt. A ``no'' vote is really a vote to shirk our own 
responsibility, our constitutional responsibility, since all 
legislative authority is vested in the Congress of the United States.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The senior assistant 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 Senate amendment 
     No. 2700 to amendment No. 2282, as modified, to 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.
         Pat Toomey, Ted Cruz, Cindy Hyde-Smith, James Lankford, 
           John Cornyn, Roy Blunt, Thom Tillis, Marco Rubio, Mitch 
           McConnell, Ben Sasse, James M. Inhofe, James E. Risch, 
           John Barrasso, Cory Gardner, John Thune, Steve Daines, 
           Ron Johnson.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 2700, offered by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. 
McConnell, for the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Toomey, to amendment 
No. 2282, as modified, to 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, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. 
Portman).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Portman) 
would have voted ``yea.''

[[Page S3934]]

  

  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Sullivan). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 35, nays 62, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 123 Leg.]

                                YEAS--35

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Corker
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Flake
     Gardner
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Perdue
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--62

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Duckworth
     McCain
     Portman
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 35, the nays are 
62.
  The motion is rejected.


                             Cloture Motion

  Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending 
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The senior assistant 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 Senate amendment 
     No. 2282, as modified, to 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, Mike Crapo, Deb Fischer, Mike Rounds, 
           Roger F. Wicker, Ted Cruz, Cindy Hyde-Smith, James 
           Lankford, Marco Rubio, James M. Inhofe, John Cornyn, 
           Roy Blunt, Thom Tillis, James E. Risch, John Barrasso, 
           Cory Gardner, John Thune.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 2282, as modified, offered by the Senator from Oklahoma, 
Mr. Inhofe, to 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, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. 
McCain).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. 
Duckworth), is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 83, nays 14, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 124 Leg.]

                                YEAS--83

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--14

     Cardin
     Corker
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Johnson
     Lee
     Markey
     Merkley
     Paul
     Sanders
     Warren
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Crapo
     Duckworth
     McCain
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 83, the nays are 
14.
  The motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.


                           Amendment No. 2366

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I make a point of order that amendment No. 
2366 is not germane.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is well taken. The 
amendment falls.


                           Amendment No. 2700

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I make a point of order that amendment No. 
2700 is not germane.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is well taken. The 
amendment falls.


         Amendment No. 2276 to Amendment No. 2282, as Modified

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2276 on behalf of 
Senator Boozman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe], for Mr. Boozman, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2276 to amendment No. 2282, as 
     modified.

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

(Purpose: To require a report on the permanent stationing of the United 
                States forces in the Republic of Poland)

       Strike section 1254 and insert the following:

     SEC. 1254. REPORT ON PERMANENT STATIONING OF UNITED STATES 
                   FORCES IN THE REPUBLIC OF POLAND.

       (a) In General.--Not later than March 1, 2019, the 
     Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of 
     State, shall submit to the congressional defense committees a 
     report on the feasibility and advisability of permanently 
     stationing United States forces in the Republic of Poland.
       (b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (1) An assessment of the types of permanently stationed 
     United States forces in Poland required to deter aggression 
     by the Russian Federation and execute Department of Defense 
     contingency plans, including combat enabler units in 
     capability areas such as--
       (A) combat engineering;
       (B) logistics and sustainment;
       (C) warfighting headquarters elements;
       (D) long-range fires;
       (E) air and missile defense;
       (F) intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; and
       (G) electronic warfare.
       (2) An assessment of the feasibility and advisability of 
     permanently stationing a United States Army brigade combat 
     team in the Republic of Poland that includes the following:
       (A) An assessment whether a permanently stationed United 
     States Army brigade combat team in Poland would enhance 
     deterrence against Russian aggression in Eastern Europe.
       (B) An assessment of the actions the Russian Federation may 
     take in response to a United States decision to permanently 
     station a brigade combat team in Poland.
       (C) An assessment of the international political 
     considerations of permanently stationing such a brigade 
     combat team in Poland, including within the North Atlantic 
     Treaty Organization (NATO).
       (D) An assessment whether a such a brigade combat team in 
     Poland would support implementation of the National Defense 
     Strategy.
       (E) A description and assessment of the manner in which 
     such a brigade combat team in Poland would affect the ability 
     of the Joint Force to execute Department of Defense 
     contingency plans in Europe.
       (F) A description and assessment of the manner in which 
     such a brigade combat team in Poland would affect the ability 
     of the Joint Force to respond to a crisis inside the 
     territory of a North Atlantic Treaty Organization ally that 
     occurs prior to the invocation of Article 5 of the Washington 
     Treaty by the North Atlantic Council.

[[Page S3935]]

       (G) An identification and assessment of--
       (i) potential locations in Poland for stationing such a 
     brigade combat team;
       (ii) the logistics requirements, including force enablers, 
     equipment, supplies, storage, and maintenance, that would be 
     required to support such a brigade combat team in Poland;
       (iii) infrastructure investments by the United States and 
     Poland, including new construction or upgrades of existing 
     sites, that would be required to support such a brigade 
     combat team in Poland;
       (iv) any new agreements, or changes to existing agreements, 
     between the United States and Poland that would be required 
     for a such a brigade combat team in Poland;
       (v) any changes to the posture or capabilities of the Joint 
     Force in Europe that would be required to support such a 
     brigade combat team in Poland; and
       (vi) the timeline required to achieve the permanent 
     stationing of such a brigade combat team in Poland.
       (H) An assessment of the willingness and ability of the 
     Government of Poland to provide host nation support for such 
     a brigade combat team.
       (I) An assessment whether future growth in United States 
     Army end strength may be used to source additional forces for 
     such a brigade combat team in Poland.
       (c) Form.--The report required by subsection (a) shall be 
     submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified 
     annex.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                Amendment No. 2885 to Amendment No. 2276

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2885 to amendment 
No. 2276.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2885 to amendment No. 2276.

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

                  (Purpose: To improve the amendment)

       At the end, add the following:

     SEC. 1254A. INEFFECTIVENESS OF SECTION 937.

       Section 937, relating to a Strategic Defense Fellows 
     Program for the Department of Defense, shall have no force or 
     effect.

     SEC. 1254B. JOHN S. MCCAIN STRATEGIC DEFENSE FELLOWS PROGRAM.

       (a) Fellowship Program.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     establish within the Department of Defense a civilian 
     fellowship program designed to provide leadership development 
     and the commencement of a career track toward senior 
     leadership in the Department.
       (2) Designation.--The fellowship program shall be known as 
     the ``John S. McCain Strategic Defense Fellows Program'' (in 
     this section referred to as the ``fellows program'').
       (b) Eligibility.--An individual is eligible for 
     participation in the fellows program if the individual--
       (1) is a citizen of the United States or a lawful permanent 
     resident of the United States in the year in which the 
     individual applies for participation in the fellows program; 
     and
       (2) either--
       (A) possesses a graduate degree from an accredited 
     institution of higher education in the United States that was 
     awarded not later than two years before the date of the 
     acceptance of the individual into the fellows program; or
       (B) will be awarded a graduate degree from an accredited 
     institution of higher education in the United States not 
     later than six months after the date of the acceptance of the 
     individual into the fellows program.
       (c) Application.--
       (1) Application required.--Each individual seeking to 
     participate in the fellows program shall submit to the 
     Secretary an application therefor at such time and in such 
     manner as the Secretary shall specify.
       (2) Elements.--Each application of an individual under this 
     subsection shall include the following:
       (A) Transcripts of educational achievement at the 
     undergraduate and graduate level.
       (B) A resume.
       (C) Proof of citizenship or lawful permanent residence.
       (D) An endorsement from the applicant's graduate 
     institution of higher education.
       (E) An academic writing sample.
       (F) Letters of recommendation addressing the applicant's 
     character, academic ability, and any extracurricular 
     activities.
       (G) A personal statement by the applicant explaining career 
     areas of interest and motivations for service in the 
     Department.
       (H) Such other information as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.
       (d) Selection.--
       (1) In general.--Each year, the Secretary shall select 
     participants in the fellows program from among applicants for 
     the fellows program for such year who qualify for 
     participation in the fellows program based on character, 
     commitment to public service, academic achievement, 
     extracurricular activities, and such other qualifications for 
     participation in the fellows program as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate.
       (2) Number.--The number of individuals selected to 
     participate in the fellows program in any year may not exceed 
     the numbers as follows:
       (A) Ten individuals from each geographic region of the 
     United States as follows:
       (i) The Northeast.
       (ii) The Southeast.
       (iii) The Midwest.
       (iv) The Southwest.
       (v) The West.
       (B) Ten additional individuals.
       (3) Background investigation.--An individual selected to 
     participate in the fellows program may not participate in the 
     program unless the individual successfully undergoes a 
     background investigation applicable to the position to which 
     the individual will be assigned under the fellows program and 
     otherwise meets such requirements applicable to assignment to 
     a sensitive position within the Department that the Secretary 
     considers appropriate.
       (e) Assignment.--
       (1) In general.--Each individual who participates in the 
     fellows program shall be assigned to a position in the Office 
     of the Secretary of Defense.
       (2) Position requirements.--Each Under Secretary of Defense 
     and each Director of a Defense Agency who reports directly to 
     the Secretary shall submit to the Secretary each year the 
     qualifications and skills to be demonstrated by participants 
     in the fellows program to qualify for assignment under this 
     subsection for service in a position of the office of such 
     Under Secretary or Director.
       (3) Assignment to positions.--The Secretary shall each year 
     assign participants in the fellows program to positions in 
     the offices of the Under Secretaries and Directors described 
     in paragraph (2). In making such assignments, the Secretary 
     shall seek to best match the qualifications and skills of 
     participants in the fellows program with the requirements of 
     positions available for assignment. Each participant so 
     assigned shall serve as a special assistant to the Under 
     Secretary or Director to whom assigned.
       (4) Term.--The term of each assignment under the fellows 
     program shall be one year.
       (5) Pay and benefits.--An individual assigned to a position 
     under the fellows program shall be compensated at the rate of 
     compensation for employees at level GS-10 of the General 
     Schedule, and shall be treated as an employee of the United 
     States during the term of assignment, including for purposes 
     of eligibility for health care benefits and retirement 
     benefits available to employees of the United States.
       (6) Education loan repayment.--To the extent that funds are 
     provided in advance in appropriations Acts, the Secretary may 
     repay any loan of a participant in the fellows program if the 
     loan is described by subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of section 
     16301(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code. Any repayment of 
     loans under this paragraph shall be on a first-come, first-
     served basis.
       (f) Career Development.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that 
     participants in the fellows program--
       (A) receive opportunities and support appropriate for the 
     commencement of a career track within the Department leading 
     toward a future position of senior leadership within the 
     Department, including ongoing mentorship support through 
     appropriate personnel from entities within the Department 
     such as the Defense Business Board and the Defense Innovation 
     Board; and
       (B) are provided appropriate opportunities for employment 
     and advancement within the Department upon successful 
     completion of the fellows program.
       (2) Reservation of positions.--In carrying out paragraph 
     (1)(B), the Secretary shall reserve for participants who 
     successfully complete the fellows program not fewer than 30 
     positions in the excepted service within the Department that 
     are suitable for the commencement of a career track toward 
     senior leadership within the Department. Any position so 
     reserved shall not be subject to or covered by any reduction 
     in headquarters personnel required under any other provision 
     of law.
       (3) Noncompetitive appointment.--Upon the successful 
     completion of the assignment of a participant in the fellows 
     program in a position pursuant to subsection (e), the 
     Secretary may, without regard to the provisions of subchapter 
     I of chapter 33 of title 5, United States Code, appoint the 
     participant to a position reserved pursuant to paragraph (2) 
     if the Secretary determines that such appointment will 
     contribute to the development of highly qualified future 
     senior leaders for the Department.
       (4) Publication of selection.--The Secretary shall publish 
     on an Internet website of the Department available to the 
     public the names of the individuals selected to participate 
     in the fellows program.
       (g) Outreach.--The Secretary shall undertake appropriate 
     outreach to inform potential participants in the fellows 
     program of the nature and benefits of participation in the 
     fellows program.
       (h) Regulations.--The Secretary shall carry out this 
     section in accordance with such regulations as the Secretary 
     may prescribe for purposes of this section.
       (i) Funding.--Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated 
     for each fiscal year for the Department of Defense for 
     operation and maintenance, Defense-wide, $10,000,000 may

[[Page S3936]]

     be available to carry out the fellows program in such fiscal 
     year.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                           Amendment No. 2273

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I call up the Rounds amendment No. 2273 to 
the underlying bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe], for Mr. Rounds, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2273 to the language proposed 
     to be stricken by amendment No. 2282, as modified.

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

   (Purpose: To require a report on participation in the Transition 
                          Assistance Program)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. REPORT ON PARTICIPATION IN THE TRANSITION 
                   ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than February 28, 2019, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed 
     Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a 
     report on participation in the Transition Assistance Program 
     under section 1144 of title 10, United States Code, by 
     members of the Armed Forces.
       (b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (1) Information on the participation of members of the 
     Armed Forces in the Transition Assistance Program during 
     2018, including the following:
       (A) The number of members who were eligible for 
     participation in the Program during 2018, in aggregate and by 
     component of the Armed Forces.
       (B) The number of members who participated in the Program 
     during 2018, in aggregate and by component of the Armed 
     Forces, for each service as follows:
       (i) Preseparation counseling provided by the Department of 
     Defense.
       (ii) Briefings provided by the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs.
       (iii) Employment workshops provided by the Department of 
     Labor.
       (C) The number of members who did not participate in the 
     Program during 2018 due to a waiver of the participation 
     requirement under section 114(c)(2) of title 10, United Stats 
     Code, for each service set forth in subparagraph (B).
       (2) Such recommendations for legislative or administrative 
     action as the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security, considers appropriate to 
     increase participation of members of the Armed Forces in each 
     service set forth in paragraph (1)(B).
       (3) Assessments of the Transition Assistance Program by 
     members of the Armed Forces who participated in the Program 
     during 2018, including the following:
       (A) A summary of the data obtained by the Department of 
     Defense through assessments of the Program by participants in 
     the Program during 2018, including data obtained through the 
     assessments as follows:
       (i) The Transition Goals Plans Success (GPS) Participant 
     Assessment.
       (ii) Status of Forces Surveys (SOFS).
       (B) A summary of the conclusions derived by the Secretary 
     of Defense from the data described in subparagraph (A).
       (4) Such recommendations for improvements to the Transition 
     Assistance Program as the Secretary of Defense considers 
     appropriate in light of the data described by paragraph 
     (3)(A) and the conclusions described by paragraph (3)(B), 
     including recommendations for such legislative or 
     administrative action as the Secretary considers appropriate 
     to carry out such improvements.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.


                            Trump-Kim Summit

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am glad we are making such great 
progress on the Defense authorization bill. I know some additional work 
needs to be done. I wanted to come to the floor and comment briefly on 
the historic meeting that occurred this last week with North Korean 
officials in Singapore.
  President Trump, Secretary of State Pompeo, National Security Advisor 
Bolton, and the rest of the American delegation are to be congratulated 
for having this meeting. It was a historic first step, and I applaud 
President Trump for taking it. But I reiterate: It was a first step.
  To me, it reminds me of boxers entering the ring and touching gloves 
before the fight begins. It is a warmup for something longer and much 
more difficult. We need to remain clear-eyed about who we are dealing 
with and not assume that there isn't hard work to be done.
  As one commentator recently put it, North Korean duplicity is normal. 
We need to remind ourselves of our own history of negotiating with 
North Korea and our counterpart's record of saying one thing and simply 
doing another.
  The joint agreement signed by President Trump and Kim Jong Un set 
broad goals whereby the United States made unspecified ``security 
guarantees'' and Kim Jong Un recommitted to work toward the complete 
denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. This agreement set the stage 
for future engagements between our Secretary of State and his North 
Korean counterpart.
  By saying it is a first step--or, like two boxers, touching gloves 
before the fight begins--I don't want to suggest in any way that this 
was unimportant. I think it is dramatically important because I can't 
think of any other place in the world where a misstep or a 
miscalculation could lead to so much bloodshed, heartache, and 
conflict. While we know that the military option must always be the 
last option, diplomacy is always welcome and is facilitated by a strong 
military and preparedness. But now the followup negotiations will be 
led by Secretary Pompeo, and I have every confidence that he will ably 
lead those.
  He has said that the United States hopes to achieve ``major 
disarmament'' of North Korea's nuclear arsenal during the next 2\1/2\ 
years but added emphatically that we will resume joint military 
exercises with South Korea if the talks stall.
  I think this represents the right approach. Aim for the best, while 
remaining vigilant and preparing for all possible obstacles and 
outcomes.
  President Trump has said that sanctions against North Korea will 
remain in effect until we are sure that nuclear weapons are no longer a 
factor. I applaud this stance of maximum pressure. We shouldn't take 
our foot off the gas at this point because that is what brought us to 
this historic meeting in the first place.
  I believe the United States should remain committed to the permanent, 
verifiable, and irreversible dismantling of North Korea's weapons of 
mass destruction, and I wish Secretary Pompeo luck as he continues 
followup discussions in South Korea to help accomplish the goal that we 
seek.
  As Speaker Ryan said last week, President Trump has now ``disrupted 
the status quo.'' I like the way he expressed that. President Trump--if 
nothing--is good at disrupting the status quo, but here, when it comes 
to North Korea, it is enormously positive when the status quo includes 
a brutal dictatorship that commits flagrant human rights violations, 
has a state-controlled economy, is starving its own people in order to 
build nuclear weapons, and has shown contempt for international norms 
and global diplomacy. I would say that the careful and cautious kind of 
``disruption'' is exactly the right thing to do.
  Our colleagues across the aisle seem to agree, and I am grateful for 
that. Not everything needs to be a partisan issue here in Washington, 
DC. In a statement, the junior Senator from Vermont called the summit 
earlier this week ``a positive step in de-escalating tensions.'' I saw 
that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper made 
similar positive remarks. We will have to wait and see how this story 
unfolds, but the President is to be commended, first for ensuring that 
the summit took place at all and, then, for providing us with hope for 
a path forward.


                               Farm Bill

  Mr. President, another item of business today is the farm bill, which 
I hope we will take up promptly here in the Senate. Fortunately, it 
passed the Senate Agriculture Committee yesterday by a vote of 20-to-1. 
Thanks to Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow, this bipartisan 
compromise is a fair and equitable bill that does not favor one region 
of the country over another. I have found in my time in the Senate that 
agricultural issues and the farm bill don't pit Democrats against 
Republicans so much as it pits one region of the country against 
another, which makes it even more challenging--kind of like a Rubik's 
Cube to figure out. But the near unanimous vote is a testament to the 
collaboration and bipartisanship of the leaders of the committee. They 
deserve the respect and appreciation of us all, especially those of us 
who hail from States where agriculture has such a dominant presence, 
like my State

[[Page S3937]]

and like the State of the Presiding Officer.
  The farm bill is always a significant piece of legislation because it 
helps to ensure that Americans, and many other people who depend upon 
our food supply, enjoy access to the safest, most affordable, and most 
reliable food supply in the world. We have to remember that in many 
non-Western countries, you can't just walk up to a store and know that 
what you want will be there on the shelf or that it will be affordable 
or that it will be safe to even eat. The farm bill helps to ensure that 
we continue to enjoy each of those things, knowing that we can walk 
into a store, that we will find what we want, that it will be 
affordable, and that it will be safe to eat.
  This year's farm bill will be hugely impactful for farmers and 
ranchers in my State of Texas. Among its most noteworthy provisions are 
protecting seed cotton eligibility for the farm bill safety net. In the 
supplemental funding bill we passed last February, we worked hard to 
include this language, returning cotton to the safety net. This helped 
cotton growers compete on a level playing field after years of 
depressed prices.
  So I want to thank Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow, as 
well as the rest of the committee, for ensuring that this policy 
continues and that cotton farmers have the long-term predictability 
they deserve under the farm bill.
  This year's bill also retains and strengthens the Price Loss Coverage 
Program to help provide Texas producers with predictability throughout 
unstable weather and natural disasters. That comes as great news this 
year, especially, when we are all well aware that much of the Texas 
Panhandle, as well as much of the rest of my State, remains under 
severe, or even exceptional, drought conditions.
  Additionally, the bill promotes animal health and reauthorizes 
disease research programs, including a crucial one that will help the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture research and contain the spread of 
cattle fever tick. This is a parasite-carrying insect with the 
potential to wipe out cattle herds and cause devastating financial 
losses.
  The research programs that we are promoting will help farmers and 
ranchers all across the country. I know the senior Senator from 
Minnesota, for example, has been concerned about avian influenza in her 
State, and I am glad that we were able to work together to ensure that 
these important research programs, with all of their implications, are 
authorized in the bill.
  On top of that, the farm bill will strengthen crop insurance and 
other crop management tools and enhance incentive programs that help 
the agriculture community conserve soil and water.
  Finally, the bill encourages the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
research partnerships, including those at Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and 
Prairie View A&M, to promote more productive and profitable farming, 
and it will assist Texas farmers and ranchers in placing and selling 
their products in foreign markets.
  I know Senator McConnell intends to take the farm bill up on the 
floor as soon as possible, and I look forward to supporting its swift 
passage.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hyde-Smith). The Senator from 
Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside 
the pending amendment in order to call up amendment No. 2304.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, this amendment very simply directs 
the Postmaster General to issue a Forever Stamp to honor Gold Star 
families who have lost a family member in combat. It is about as simple 
and straightforward as an amendment to this immensely complex and 
costly measure could be.
  We are now in the second decade of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at 
humongous costs to our Nation: In treasure, some $5 trillion, and in 
lives, close to 7,000 Americans have perished.
  On this Flag Day, and at the beginning of the Father's Day weekend, I 
ask that this body approve an amendment that very simply would issue 
and direct the Postmaster to issue a Forever Stamp commemorating the 
sacrifice and loss of our Gold Star families.
  All of us in this body have attended funerals. We have seen firsthand 
the losses suffered by brave Americans, their families, their loved 
ones, their friends, their dads, and their moms. All of us ought to be 
joining in paying tribute to those families by directing the Postmaster 
General to issue a Forever Stamp, which will be valid for whatever time 
it is used.
  There is precedent for this kind of stamp. In fact, I was reminded of 
it by a friend and constituent, Joe Kaliko of Greenwich, CT, who was 
inspired by his childhood stamp collection to suggest a stamp for Gold 
Star families, permanently recognizing and commemorating these national 
heroes. The stamp was issued in 1947 for Gold Star mothers. It expired 
about a year thereafter. Since then, this Nation has never issued such 
a stamp again, but there is no better time than now to recognize this 
service and sacrifice.
  This amendment is a very simple way to pay tribute to Americans who 
have lost loved ones in wars that we have permitted and authorized to 
go forward. Indeed, this defense bill has more than $700 billion, and a 
good part of it will be in support of continued American service and 
sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  So my question to colleagues is: Who knows better about whether this 
stamp ought to be issued, the Postmaster General or ourselves? Their 
objection is that somehow there is bad precedent here in Congress 
authorizing a Forever Stamp. We ought to be proud of that precedent 
because this cause is different. Especially as we pass a measure that 
will support continued war efforts in defense of our Nation, protecting 
our national security, we ought to be especially mindful of the need to 
remember and pay tribute to families who have sacrificed loved ones in 
the service of our country.
  I know that every one of my colleagues joins me in this feeling. I 
hope that every one of my colleagues will join me in making that 
feeling known to the Postmaster General. This amendment is one way of 
doing it.
  To all of us whose sons or daughters have served--as two of mine 
have--during this period of war, we must be haunted by the idea that we 
could be one of those Gold Star families. No doubt, some of my 
colleagues have been touched directly and immediately--I would say 
almost all of us--by friends, neighbors, or relatives who have suffered 
these losses. Let us remember them in this special way, as the Nation 
did after World War II. Let us remember the moms and the dads on 
Father's Day, on Flag Day, and on every day.
  I want to speak more generally about the National Defense 
Authorization Act because it is a vital and profoundly significant step 
toward sustaining our national defense and security.
  In an era of unprecedented threats to our great Nation, the dangers 
have never been greater. The need for this defense--particularly in 
areas and domains where we are at a disadvantage, like cyber--is 
critically important.
  The United States is the strongest and greatest Nation in the history 
of the world. Militarily, we have no peer. But other nations are 
rapidly advancing in many of the spaces and domains where our advantage 
was secure. In undersea warfare, in space and cyber and robotic combat, 
we must invest.
  We need to invest not only in the hardware but also in the people--in 
the men and women who fight, who put their lives on the line, who wear 
the uniform and, equally, in the men and women who make the arms and 
equipment and weapons platforms they take into combat. They should 
never have a fair fight. The defense industrial base requires skill and 
training so they can make the submarines, helicopters, and Joint Strike 
Fighters, which we do in Connecticut and in States around this country.
  The men and women who make that stuff are equally important to our 
national defense, and their skill training and jobs are vital to our 
national security. I think we need to recognize that education and 
training are vital parts of our defense, even though they may not be 
included in this bill.

[[Page S3938]]

  I was proud to author a provision which will ensure that survivors of 
military sexual trauma, assault, and harassment are eligible for 
``liberal consideration'' during discharge upgrade petition.
  Throughout my service in the Senate, I have worked to improve 
discharge upgrade provisions to ensure that servicemember petitions are 
treated fairly and expeditiously. This policy change was a crucial next 
step in reforming that discharge petition upgrade process.
  Another provision I have led will require a zero tolerance policy 
toward domestic violence in the military, a long overdue provision 
which will ensure that offenders in the armed services are held 
accountable and referred to the FBI.
  In defending our Nation against Russian cyber attacks, a provision in 
this year's NDAA will authorize USCYBERCOM to detect, deter, and defend 
against Russian information and weapons cyber warfare campaigns that 
target American Government officials. We should be doing vastly more 
against cyber attacks from Russia and other adversaries around the 
world, rather than coddling or cozying up to them, as this 
administration seems to want to do repeatedly. We should be recognizing 
they are attacking us, literally, daily in the cyber domain.
  This legislation will invest in that defense industrial base, which 
is so vital in Connecticut and elsewhere. I am proud that Connecticut 
plays such a vital role in our defense industry. Five percent of our 
country's defense contract spending is done in Connecticut, and every 
dollar is critical to our national security, involving the production 
of submarines, electric boats, and F-35 engines at Pratt & Whitney, and 
helicopters at Sikorsky, notably the heavy lift CH-53. Submarines, 
fighters, and helicopters are proudly produced in this arsenal of 
democracy.
  Groton, CT, is the submarine capital of the world. This bill will 
support submarines and this important naval installation. The NDAA 
includes nearly $3.8 billion for the Columbia-class program and $4.4 
billion for two Virginia-class submarines. I fought to include an 
additional $250 million in funding above the President's request for 
over $3 billion in advance procurement of attack submarines to achieve 
the Navy's goals of 66 attack submarines for the 355-ship Navy the 
Nation needs. These submarines are not a luxury or convenience. They 
are the stealthiest, most versatile, strongest weapons platform we 
have, capable of delivering surveillance and special operators and 
cruise missiles and other vital means of war.
  I have also championed more than $10.4 billion in funding for 75 F-35 
Joint Strike Fighters across the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps 
Services for the only fifth-generation fighter in production. I am so 
glad the administration is now supporting the F-35, after the President 
expressed doubts at the beginning of this administration. The bill also 
includes $1 billion for F-35 modernization and spares.
  The 2019 NDAA includes very robust funding for helicopter production. 
Sikorsky helicopters, made in Stratford, CT, have served our Nation for 
decades. It will support collaboration involving the University of 
Connecticut and the Navy, $25 million above the President's request in 
research and development funding for warship partnerships.
  As we consider these floor amendments, I want to emphasize one 
amendment that I have filed concerning the current immigration crisis; 
specifically, the predicament of unaccompanied minors.
  In May, Attorney General Jeff Sessions declared that the Justice 
Department would prosecute every person who illegally enters the 
country and separate children from their parents. Previously, families 
apprehended at the border were released as they waited for civil 
deportation hearings, but this new, cruel policy will tear apart 
countless families. It has already separated literally thousands of 
children of immigrant families from their moms and, yes, on this 
Father's Day, from their dads.
  These heartless family-separation policies are made even more 
inhumane with the announcement that the Trump administration plans to 
house these immigrant children, who have been separated from their 
parents, on military bases. The only reason the Trump administration is 
even considering detaining children on military installations is 
because the number they are tearing away from their moms and dads 
exceeds the facilities they have available right now. The Department of 
Health and Human Services has already visited four military 
installations--both in Texas and Arkansas--to assess whether they can 
be used to shelter children.
  Just this week, we also heard that the Trump administration is 
looking to construct ``tent cities''--yes, ``tent cities''--along the 
southern border to house unaccompanied migrant children.
  This practice ought to make us ashamed and embarrassed as Americans. 
It is appalling. I am ashamed that the United States is not only 
actively destroying families and indefinitely detaining children but 
also using military bases to do this. Turning military installations 
into detention camps is a disservice to our brave military men and 
women. Using our military installations to in effect imprison children 
separated from their parents mocks their purpose and disrespects our 
brave men and women in uniform who rightly use them in the defense of 
our Nation.
  My amendment in the NDAA would explicitly prohibit the Department of 
Defense from using any funding authorized in this defense spending 
package to revise or rebuild or renovate military bases to house these 
undocumented, unaccompanied minors.
  I urge my colleagues to speak out about this disgusting and dangerous 
policy--not only the separation of children from their moms and dads 
but also the use of our cherished military bases for that purpose.
  I am also proud to have worked with my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to stand up to the threat posed by two Chinese 
telecommunications companies--Huawei and ZTE. This bipartisan 
opposition to their continued business is a testament to our ability to 
work across the aisle in defense of our Nation.
  Our military and intelligence leaders have repeatedly warned that ZTE 
and Huawei threaten the security of our networks due to their close 
ties to the Chinese Government. They have also violated our sanctions, 
broken our law, and provided equipment and services to rogue regimes, 
such as Iran and North Korea.
  President Trump and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross may be willing to 
overlook ZTE's track record, but Congress will not do so. Our 
amendment, which has been included in the managers' package, will 
prohibit ZTE and Huawei technologies and equipment from entering the 
networks of the U.S. Government and its contractors for the safety and 
security of all of us.
  It is not just an intellectual point; it is a practical security 
measure. These two companies are instruments of Chinese influence, and 
they are peddling that influence throughout the world. We will ensure 
through this provision that these two telecommunications companies 
beholden to the Chinese Government are not a part of our communications 
system in this great Nation.
  I am proud to support this NDAA.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. Madam President, the Constitution charges Congress with 
the authority and the responsibility to raise and support armies and 
provide and maintain a navy. It is a responsibility this body takes 
very seriously. That is why for over 50 years the National Defense 
Authorization Act has been signed into law each and every year. It is 
the only piece of legislation with this long history of consistently 
being passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. This 
history is a reflection of the importance of the policies and funding 
authorizations within the bill.
  I am particularly proud of what this bill includes to support 
Michigan's important contributions to our national defense. For 
example, the 127th Wing at Selfridge Air National Guard Base flies the 
A-10 and in 2015 deployed in the fight against ISIS. As a result of 
their outstanding performance, the 127th Wing won the Spaatz Trophy as 
the top flying unit in the Air National Guard,

[[Page S3939]]

as well as the Meritorious Unit Award following their deployment.
  The A-10 is without question a great airplane, but it is also getting 
old. The A-10 fleet will require wing replacements in order to continue 
to fly those important missions. That is why I worked to include an 
authorization for an additional $65 million for A-10 wing replacement, 
bringing the bill's total investment in new A-10 wings to over $144 
million. These funds will help pay for new wings for a full squadron's 
worth of A-10 aircraft, which are vital for close air support and 
combat search and rescue missions. Our troops on the ground know that 
when they hear the iconic roar of an A-10, help is on the way. A-10 
pilots and maintainers are proud of their mission, as they should be. 
This bill works to ensure that these aircraft will keep flying.
  The legislation also includes an additional $70 million for the next-
generation combat vehicle prototype. The Detroit Arsenal in Warren will 
be the home of the Army's cross-functional team for the next-generation 
combat vehicle, reporting to the Army Futures Command.
  This important work on developing the future of the Army's ground 
vehicles will continue to occur in Southeast Michigan, taking advantage 
of many of the automotive manufacturers and suppliers that are shaping 
the future of mobility.
  Just as the commercial automotive industry is developing connected 
and autonomous vehicles that will change the future of transportation 
forever, the next-generation combat vehicle and other concepts 
developed by the Army's Tank Automotive Research, Development and 
Engineer Center, TARDEC, will change the future of warfare.
  All self-driving vehicles, whether they are developed for the 
military or for the auto industry, rely on artificial intelligence and 
machine learning. Artificial intelligence powers autonomous systems but 
can also reform the business practices of the Pentagon. AI can help 
with personnel management and purchasing practices and find insights 
and efficiencies that are difficult to find unless you can manipulate 
and analyze the Department's massive amounts of data.
  Artificial intelligence will have an enormous impact on our economy, 
and that is why it is essential that the United States make significant 
investments in AI development and that we lead the world in developing 
this capability. We know that our competitors are taking AI very 
seriously. China has developed a national strategy to develop its AI 
capabilities, and Vladimir Putin has said that whoever leads in AI will 
rule the world. The United States must lead the way on artificial 
intelligence to best shape the future economy and our country, to 
strengthen our national security, and to address the moral and ethical 
questions that arise with any new technology.
  Without question, the United States needs our own coordinated 
strategy on AI. That is why I wrote a provision in the bill that 
designates a senior official for artificial intelligence at the 
Department of Defense and cuts redtape, letting that person utilize all 
of the flexibilities Congress has provided to the Pentagon.
  It is also important that we take steps to protect American ingenuity 
and innovation generally. That is why I also authored a provision in 
the bill that will allow the Department of Defense to require that 
companies and researchers receiving defense contracts not share new 
technologies and capabilities developed with any foreign entity, and if 
they do, they will lose the rights to that intellectual property. This 
will help ensure that investments made by DARPA and the DOD labs are 
not shared with our competitors.
  Additionally, this bill also includes reform to the Committee on 
Foreign Investment in the United States, known as CFIUS. CFIUS works to 
ensure that investments in U.S. companies made by foreign investors do 
not threaten national security by providing other countries with access 
to the crown jewels of U.S. technology.
  In closing, Madam President, I wish to point out that this bill is 
named for Chairman John McCain. We all know his presence is missed on 
the Armed Services Committee, as well as throughout the entire Senate. 
I wish him a speedy recovery. I am keeping him and his family in my 
prayers.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.


                           amendment no. 2276

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the 
amendment the senior Senator from Arkansas has offered to the H.R. 
5515, the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA. 
Senator Boozman's amendment is a thoughtful one. It proposes to solicit 
information from the Department of Defense to help us carefully think 
through our response to the changed strategic situation in Europe. 
Russia's military aggression and Military incursions in Georgia, 
Ukraine, and elsewhere have made it abundantly clear that we are no 
longer in the security environment that provided the context for the 
commitments we made in the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act.
  The United States and Poland have a long record of highly effective 
cooperation in military matters. Poland has made important 
contributions to operations in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, and an 
American-led NATO battle group in Poland is playing an important role 
in reinforcing NATO's eastern flank today.
  Still, a decision to permanently deploy U.S. forces to the territory 
of even such a stalwart ally should not be taken lightly. This 
amendment wisely requests that the Department of Defense provide its 
assessment of a number of factors that we will need to weigh when 
deciding whether to take such a step, including the reactions we should 
anticipate from other allies, possible responses by Russia, and more 
practical considerations including cost and timing.
  Poland needs no reminder about the external threats it faces. After 
all, it borders Ukraine. However, Poland faces an enemy within: 
democratic backsliding, which plays into Vladimir Putin's hands as he 
aims to undermine democratic values across Europe.
  Since 2015, the Polish Government has challenged constitutionalism, 
eroded checks and balances, and indulged in historical revisionism. The 
breadth and depth of the government's actions led the European 
Commission to conclude in December that Poland's ``executive and 
legislative branches have been systematically enabled to politically 
interfere in the composition, powers, administration and functioning of 
the judicial branch.''
  I discussed these concerns in a meeting with Polish Deputy Foreign 
Minister Marek Magierowski in February, including a controversial law, 
introduced on the eve of International Holocaust Remembrance Day, which 
may actually impede research, scholarship, and journalism about the 
Holocaust. The Department of State rightly observed that this law might 
have repercussions for ``Poland's strategic interests and 
relationships--including with the United States and Israel. The 
resulting divisions that may arise among our allies benefit only our 
rivals.''
  Independence of the judiciary will take another hit on July 3, when a 
new law will go into effect forcing the early retirement of up to 40 
percent of Poland's 120-member supreme court, the reintroduction of the 
Soviet-era feature of ``lay judges,'' and make final judgments subject 
to ``extraordinary appeals.'' These developments--very concerning both 
for Poland and the region--should be part of the administration's 
dialogue with Warsaw on comprehensive transatlantic security.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I rise to highlight an issue concerning 
the industrial base that supports the strategic TRIAD. Currently the 
Air Force is developing the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent or GBSD. 
This will be the Nation's new land-based intercontinental ballistic 
missile and will replace the venerable Minuteman Three. Nearly 50 years 
ago, when Minuteman was built, there were five companies capable of 
producing large solid rocket motors. The industrial base that produces 
large solid rocket motors for the Nation's strategic TRIAD has shrunk 
to two, and if the GBSD program is not handled carefully, it could soon 
shrink to one. With each new missile likely to have three large solid 
rocket motors, it is important to maintain multiple companies that can 
produce them.
  This problem was clearly identified in April 2018 when the 
Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment released the 
Department of Defense's Annual Industrial Capabilities Report. I would 
encourage my

[[Page S3940]]

colleagues to go read the entire report for themselves. The report can 
be found at http://www.businessdefense.gov/Portals/51/Documents/
Resources/2017%20AIC%20RTC%2005-17-2018%20-
%20Public%20Release.pdf?ver=2018-05-17-224631-340.
  The report is quite lengthy; however, I would like to read one 
paragraph from page 85, which accurately synopsizes the lack of 
oversight of the large solid rocket motor industrial base: 
``Maintaining a healthy and competitive solid rocket motor industrial 
base is also of concern to the Department. Solid rocket motors for 
tactical missiles are produced in a nearly even split between the two 
domestic suppliers, Orbital ATK and Aerojet Rocketdyne. However, in the 
very near future all the large solid rocket motors for strategic 
missiles and space launch will be produced by Orbital ATK.
  Aerojet Rocketdyne has managed to maintain their large solid rocket 
motor capability for now with production of the boosters for the United 
Launch Alliance (ULA) Atlas V space launch vehicle, and small 
development investments from the GBSD program. But ULA has chosen 
Orbital ATK's boosters to replace Aerojet Rocketdyne's on Atlas and 
future launch vehicles, leaving Aerojet Rocketdyne with no large solid 
rocket motor production. Aerojet Rocketdyne has chosen to close their 
Sacramento large solid rocket motor production facility.
  While they have plans to reconstitute this capability at their Camden 
facility, they may not do so if they are not part of the winning team 
for GBSD, producing at least one solid rocket motor stage. This 
potentially leaves the United States with a single large solid rocket 
motor supplier, which can lead to cost increases due to lack of 
competition, decreases in internal research and development efforts, 
and risk of security of supply if a catastrophic accident should 
occur.''
  I am very concerned about what the Under Secretary has revealed in 
this report. I believe that the Nation must avoid a monopoly provider 
situation for the very reasons stated in the report. As a member of the 
Appropriations Committee, I believe that we have a duty to be proper 
stewards of the defense industrial base, both for our current 
warfighters and for those who will follow. This is an issue that I will 
continue to monitor, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. PETERS. 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. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding rule XXII, all postcloture time expire at 1:45 p.m. 
today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. For the information of Senators, this sets up a series 
of votes this afternoon. We should expect three to four votes during 
this series.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


         Stephen Michael Gleason Congressional Gold Medal Bill

  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I come to the floor to honor 
Washington State's finest, Spokane native and Washington State 
University Cougar Steve Gleason. I know my Senate colleagues will be 
here later this afternoon to do the same. My colleagues from Louisiana 
and Washington have introduced legislation to award Steve the 
Congressional Gold Medal, Congress's highest honor. I look forward to 
seeing this legislation pass later today by unanimous consent.
  Many Washingtonians remember Steve as a standout student athlete 
whose dedication in the classroom earned him repeated academic honors 
and whose dominance on the football field and baseball diamond set 
records and dazzled fans. Everybody back home is pulling for Steve.
  Instead of Steve going to the Seahawks, he signed with the New 
Orleans Saints. He quickly became a fan favorite for his work ethic and 
the joy he brought to the game.
  In his first game back under the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina, 
he blocked a punt that was returned for a touchdown. It is a play I 
know Saints' fans around the country still remember fondly.
  It is not Steve's athletic feats at Washington State University or in 
the Superdome that make him worth recognition, it is his perseverance, 
determination, his unbreakable spirit in the face of ALS, and his 
dogged advocacy for people who have been impacted by this disease.
  That is why Steve is such an inspiration to the people of Spokane, 
throughout the State of Washington, and across the United States. 
Through his public advocacy and collaboration with Congress, Steve 
helped pass the Steve Gleason Act, which ensures that people with ALS 
and other degenerative diseases can access speech-generating devices, 
whether at home or in a health facility.
  His leadership with the Gleason Initiative Foundation brought 
together the largest ALS research project in the world, and his work 
has helped us improve the lives of countless individuals who have been 
impacted by this disease.
  We could not be more proud of him, and that is why we are here today, 
to make sure this legislation gives that appropriate recognition. Steve 
Gleason said: ``Our potential is not contained in our physical bodies, 
but rather in our mind and in our spirit.''
  I so appreciate all he has done to help fight this disease. He has 
been such a leader in communicating the needs of those with ALS and 
showing the progress we all can make. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
amendments be called up en bloc: amendments Nos. 2289, 2295, 2300, 
2322, 2365, 2440, 2441, 2464, 2486, 2509, 2544, 2550, 2579, 2587, 2589, 
2598, 2600, 2611, 2617, 2623, 2633, 2634, 2653, 2654, 2686, 2691, 2695, 
2721, 2723, 2729, 2737, 2742, 2755, 2758, 2768, 2794, 2799, 2800, 2810, 
2815, 2818, 2830, 2862, 2863, and 2887. I further ask consent that 
these amendments be considered en bloc; that it be in order for the Lee 
amendment No. 2366 to be called up, and that there be up to an hour of 
debate on the amendments to run concurrently, and that following the 
use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on the en bloc 
amendments and the Lee amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and 
I will object.
  My colleague from Utah, who is a very smart man on the Judiciary 
Committee, like I am--I don't know if I am smart, but we are on the 
same committee--we are actually making progress here.
  Just briefly, Senator Cruz has had an amendment that says if someone 
is suspected of being part of an enemy force, they will have a hearing 
to strip their citizenship, which avoids the problem Senator Lee and I 
have. He is trying to combine that with his amendment.
  Unfortunately, there is no ability to hold them as an enemy combatant 
during that process--and maybe we can work that out later--so I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I appreciate the efforts made by my friend 
and distinguished colleague, the Senator from South Carolina. I wish to 
speak concerning the purpose for my making this request. I do so with 
great respect for this body, for its customs, its traditions, its 
rules, and for each of its Members.
  At the same time, it is imperative that we point out what is 
happening. We have a bill--one of the most consequential pieces of 
legislation we vote on each year--the National Defense Authorization 
Act. We have been effectively shut out of a meaningful amendment 
process, one that has historically marked this body as one of its 
distinguishing characteristics; one that has historically helped this 
body to refer to itself as the world's greatest deliberative 
legislative body.
  We have tested that in recent months and years as Members have 
started objecting with increasing frequency to

[[Page S3941]]

anyone getting a vote on any amendment they don't like, that they 
object to. The amendment at issue is based on a bipartisan piece of 
legislation called the Due Process Guarantee Act. I am the lead 
sponsor, along with my lead cosponsor, the senior Senator from 
California, Mrs. Feinstein.
  The purpose of this amendment is simple. It is to make sure the U.S. 
Government has no authority and claims no authority to indefinitely 
detain U.S. citizens apprehended on U.S. soil. Most people listening to 
this--anyone listening to it--would think, why on Earth would we need 
legislation stating something so obvious? The fact is, we shouldn't.
  It is the inexorable command of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth 
Amendments, not to mention other statutory and constitutional 
protections, that the indefinite detention without charge, without 
trial, without access to a jury, without access to counsel--these kinds 
of things are anathema to our way of life, to our constitutional system 
of laws.
  Why then do we need this amendment? Well, about 7 years ago, toward 
the end of 2011, when Congress was considering, then ultimately passed, 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Congress 
included in that legislation a provision, section 2021 of that bill, 
that purported to give the U.S. Government that authority in certain 
circumstances.
  In other words, there were circumstances based on the accusations 
against you, as an American citizen, that you could be apprehended on 
U.S. soil and held indefinitely without charge or trial. This violates 
everything we know about our system of government. It violates 
everything we know about the laws of any decent nation--any nation that 
recognizes the fundamental, essentially eternal dignity of the human 
soul. This is not something we do in the United States.
  I raised objections to it at the time. I tried to fix it at the time. 
It didn't happen. The following year, late in 2012, when we were 
addressing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, 
toward the end of 2012, I introduced an amendment that is substantially 
identical to the one I am trying to seek a vote on today. It passed by 
a bipartisan supermajority vote. There were 67 Members who voted for 
this. That is more than a majority; more than the three-fifths it 
needed to close debate. In fact, it is equal to the sum required when 
you are proposing a constitutional amendment out of this body or trying 
to override a Presidential veto. That is what we had.
  For reasons that escape me, that provision was removed in the 
Conference Committee when the Conference Committee was trying to 
recognize competing House and Senate versions of the bill. In the 
subsequent 6 years, I tried repeatedly to get a vote on this amendment 
again, recognizing that it passed overwhelmingly and that it was 
inexplicably removed from the bill during the Conference Committee. 
Promise after promise has been made to help me get a vote on that 
amendment, which ever since hasn't panned out.
  We have an opportunity to consider it here. Yesterday, something 
interesting happened. Yesterday, there was a motion to table this 
amendment. In other words, there were some Members of this body who 
didn't want to consider it at all so they made a motion to table. When 
you table something in the Senate, you are setting it aside, setting it 
on the table, saying: We are not going to address that. Do you know 
what happened? There were 68 people who voted against that motion to 
table. In other words, 68 people voted that we should have a vote on 
this amendment. That is more than a majority, more than the three-
fifths or 60 needed to close debate. That is more than the threshold 
required to propose a constitutional amendment or override a 
Presidential veto.
  Why then are we not discussing this? Why are we not voting on it so 
we have a number of amendments? You may have heard me reciting a series 
of about three dozen four-digit numbers, each referring to a separate 
amendment being proposed for a so-called managers' package.
  If we are going to further amend this bill, we need to consider those 
with a vote, and we need a vote on my amendment. Yesterday, 68 Members 
of this body agreed that we should be considering this.
  Ask any American you know--your friends, your neighbors, I don't care 
what State they live in, what party they identify with, where they go 
to church or synagogue, whether they are believers in God, regardless 
of their background, their socioeconomic status, what they do for a 
living--you ask people from almost any background, and I can almost 
guarantee you they are going to call this a no-brainer.
  Why would we not want to remove a pernicious provision from a piece 
of Federal law that passed a few years ago, purporting to authorize the 
Federal Government to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens, without charge 
or trial or jury or counsel, based merely on the nature of the 
allegations against them? This is wrong, and the wrongness of that 
provision, which could be corrected by my amendment, is compounded 
still by the refusal of this body, by the refusal of 1 Member of this 
body, 1 Member out of 100, to allow us to get a vote on this. We must 
vote on this.
  If we are going to lay claim to any type of status as the world's 
greatest deliberative legislative body, we have to start voting on 
amendments again. We have steadily, sadly, tragically relinquished that 
right by acquiescence.
  As of today, I say no more. It has to stop. Let us vote on this. We 
will continue to push this. The laws of the United States and the 
principles that govern the behavior of decent people everywhere dictate 
we should correct this error in the law.
  I implore my colleagues, I implore my distinguished colleague, the 
senior Senator from South Carolina, let us vote on this amendment.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The Senator from Montana.


                                Flag Day

  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, Last year, just a few miles down the road 
in Virginia, a disabled World War II veteran, Richard Cohen, woke up to 
his burned American flag on his doorstep. Let me say that again. 
Richard Cohen, who was wounded by German machinegun fire while 
defending our freedom in World War II, woke up to his American flag 
desecrated on his doorstep.
  Unfortunately, this is just one of many astonishing stories of our 
American flag being ruined. In fact, since 2014, there have been 50 
known offensive acts of American flag burning. That is 50 times that 
our symbol of freedom--that thousands of Americans have paid the 
ultimate sacrifice for--was destroyed.
  That is why I am here today, Flag Day, to speak about my 
constitutional amendment that would prohibit the burning of the 
American flag. The colors of the flag--red, white, and blue--symbolize 
valor, purity, and perseverance. The American flag represents our 
Nation's history and the character of our Nation's Founding Fathers.
  Beginning with those Founding Fathers, the American flag represents 
the patriotism and dedication of men and women who fought to defend our 
Nation's freedom when our country was founded more than 200 years ago 
today. Thousands of brave and selfless men and women have given their 
lives in sacrifice and service to our country and in defense of our 
flag.
  That is why I have introduced this constitutional amendment to 
provide Congress with the authority to prohibit burning of the American 
flag. Our flag should be protected in honor of the countless American 
servicemembers who have paid the ultimate sacrifice to defend it.
  It is no wonder, by overwhelming majorities, our veterans and 
organizations like the American Legion support this because they have 
been on the frontlines defending our freedom.
  Our veterans are the best example of why America is still the 
greatest country on Earth and why our freedoms and our liberties are 
worth defending.
  In the words of that World War II veteran Richard Cohen, ``I served 
under that flag and I bled for it, really, and it was a personal 
affront.''
  The American flag has been a symbol of hope, a symbol of freedom for 
centuries, and it ought to be respected. On this day, Flag Day, may God 
continue to bless our troops, our veterans, and this great United 
States of America.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S3942]]

  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, there is a reason we have passed the 
National Defense Authorization Act every year for the past 57 years, 
and that is because it is vital for the men and women who take 
responsibility for defending our country. Passing the Defense 
authorization bill is one of the most important things we do in this 
Chamber, and I look forward to passing the bill that we have before us 
out of the Senate and getting it through conference and signed into law 
very soon.
  I want to start by briefly thanking the bill managers for including a 
number of my amendments, but one I will mention that they have added to 
the managers' package is an amendment that requires the Air Force and 
the National Nuclear Security Administration to submit a joint progress 
report every 6 months on their efforts to develop a new nuclear cruise 
missile capability. This will help ensure that their efforts are 
synchronized and that we stay on schedule. The nuclear cruise missile 
is an important part of our deterrent, and I am grateful for the 
committee's willingness to work with me on this amendment and include 
it in the managers' package.
  This year's legislation certainly contains its share of noteworthy 
provisions. I will not be able to mention them all, but I do want to 
talk about some of them here today. For example, it authorizes a 2.6-
percent pay raise for members of the armed services, which is the 
highest pay raise we have been able to include in more than a decade. 
It is something they very much deserve.
  Thanks to the good work of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the 
bill also takes important steps to modernize the personnel system to 
provide greater career flexibility and make sure we can meet the needs 
of the professionals who serve across our magnificent Armed Forces.
  In addition to personnel matters, I am pleased to note that the 
legislation supports our Nation's strategic priorities as reflected in 
the National Security Strategy, the National Defense Strategy, and the 
Nuclear Posture Review. Those documents rightly point out that we face 
emerging challenges from Russia and China. While we hope to avoid 
confrontation with these nations, there is no question we are in 
competition with them, and this year's NDAA helps align our forces to 
make sure we maintain our competitive advantage.
  This legislation also authorizes significant numbers of fighter 
aircraft and additional numbers of submarines and surface ships. The 
reason we are able to do that is that we, in the budget agreement this 
year, provided more funding authority for our military, which, again, 
is something we very much needed to do.
  This legislation also fully authorizes the nuclear modernization 
program aimed at sustaining and modernizing all three legs of the 
nuclear triad, as well as extending the service lives of our nuclear 
warheads. Modernizing our nuclear forces is extremely important for our 
national security, as well as to my home State. In my State, the Minot 
Air Force Base is home to two of the three legs of the triad--bombers 
and ICBMs. These men and women of the Minot Air Force Base are on the 
frontlines of vital missions, and updating our nuclear force will help 
ensure they continue to fulfill this vital role in coming decades. In 
just the past few months, I have visited that base, and we have had 
ongoing deployments to the Korean Peninsula, based TDY out of Guam, as 
well as to the Middle East, taking an important role in what is going 
on in Iraq and Syria.
  I also want to highlight in this legislation the Air Force's plan to 
replace the engines on the venerable B-52 aircraft, something I have 
worked on quite a bit. We expect that aircraft, which has been a 
workhorse for us for many years, to remain a key element of not only 
our nuclear deterrent but also an important component of our 
conventional bomber force for decades to come. New engines will help 
keep it flying and ensure that it will continue to fulfill those vital 
roles.
  The legislation also provides for significant investment in emerging 
technologies that will position our forces to remain the most capable 
military on Earth, including investments in hypersonic weapons and 
directed energy weapons.
  Another base in my State, the Grand Forks Air Force Base, has the 
Global Hawk mission. This legislation makes sure we continue support 
for the Global Hawk, which is an unmanned aircraft that provides an 
incredibly important role in ISR--intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance--which is a very important part of our global reach.
  This legislation also authorizes the annual military construction 
program, with an Army readiness center in Fargo, ND, and a helicopter 
operations facility at the Minot Air Force Base representing two 
examples of military construction projects made possible through this 
legislation. Again, these are things I have worked hard on, as well as 
other support for our National Guard in my State and across the 
country.
  This bill includes language that provides higher allowances for Guard 
members on lengthy or numerous deployments. It also addresses Federal 
delays in recognizing promotions for National Guard and Reserve 
members, who play such an important role in our Armed Forces.
  There are too many provisions to go through all of them, obviously, 
but the point is we need to pass this legislation for our men and women 
in uniform. We have the finest armed services in the world, and they 
deserve our careful and deliberate attention to ensure they have the 
benefits they deserve, the tools they need, and the support that we owe 
them.
  Again, I look forward to completing work on this legislation, and 
then, as a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee--and I am on 
the Defense Appropriations Committee as well--I will work hard to make 
sure we have the appropriate funding to go with the authorization we 
provide in this legislation to make absolutely sure we support our 
incredible men and women in uniform. We owe them so much, and it is an 
honor and privilege to work on their behalf.
  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. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I want to take a second to thank Senator 
Inhofe and Senator Reed and their staffs for all of their hard work on 
getting us to this point on the Defense authorization bill, which is so 
very important.
  Through the European Deterrence Initiative, we have made important 
progress in preparing U.S. forces and allies to address Russian threats 
to American interests and the international order that protects them.
  I was just in Poland visiting U.S. forces with Senators Inhofe, 
Capito, and Enzi. We saw firsthand the work they are doing to 
preposition equipment and to establish the necessary footprint to 
sustain operations.
  The NDAA contains a provision that would require the Secretary of 
Defense to conduct an assessment of the feasibility and advisability of 
permanently stationing a U.S. Army brigade combat team in Poland. This 
amendment would require a report to accompany the assessment, detailing 
the requirements for combat enablers to deter aggression by Russia and 
to execute the Department of Defense's contingency plans. Combat 
enablers are the essential noncombat force that helps to maintain our 
defense posture around the globe.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment as the Senate 
continues to play its oversight role to ensure that we defend our 
interests and our allies in Europe against Russian aggression.
  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. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S3943]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Amendment No. 2273 Withdrawn

  Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
amendment No. 2273.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2273) was withdrawn.
  Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the votes 
following the first vote in this series be 10 minutes in length.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate for 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2885

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, the Reed amendment would name a fellowship 
program on behalf of Senator John McCain. I can't think of anything 
more fitting, in addition to the naming of this bill, than naming this 
fellowship program on behalf of Senator McCain.
  I hope all of my colleagues will join me in voting unanimously for 
Senator McCain's fellowship program.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time 
has expired.
  The question now occurs on agreeing to amendment No. 2885, offered by 
the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. 
Moran).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 125 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harris
     Hassan
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Duckworth
     McCain
     Moran
  The amendment (No. 2885) was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2276

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to 
amendment No. 2276, offered by the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, 
for the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Boozman.
  The amendment (No. 2276) was agreed to.


          Vote on Amendment No. 2282, as Modified, as Amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to 
amendment No. 2282, offered by the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, 
as modified and amended.
  The amendment (No. 2282), as modified, as amended, was agreed to.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The senior assistant 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 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, Mike Crapo, Deb Fischer, Mike Rounds, 
           Roger F. Wicker, Ted Cruz, Cindy Hyde-Smith, James 
           Lankford, Marco Rubio, James M. Inhofe, John Cornyn, 
           Roy Blunt, Thom Tillis, James E. Risch, John Barrasso, 
           Cory Gardner, John Thune.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 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, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. 
Moran).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) 
and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 81, nays 15, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 126 Leg.]

                                YEAS--81

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--15

     Corker
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lee
     Markey
     Merkley
     Paul
     Sanders
     Warren
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Duckworth
     Manchin
     McCain
     Moran
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 81, the nays are 
15.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Louisiana.

                          ____________________