[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 103 (Wednesday, June 19, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3831-S3834]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     CONSIDERATION OF SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NOS. 27 to 48 EN BLOC

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding rule XXII, the Foreign Relations Committee be 
discharged of the following resolutions: S.J. Res. Nos. 27 through 48 
and the Senate proceed to their en bloc consideration; further, that 
the Senate debate the resolutions concurrently, and that at 11:30 on 
Thursday, June 20, the Senate vote on passage of the resolutions in the 
following order: S.J. Res. 36, S.J. Res. 38, and then vote on the 
remaining resolutions en bloc with no intervening action or debate. 
Finally, if the Senate receives a veto message with respect to any or 
all of the enumerated joint resolutions of disapproval, then, not 
withstanding rule XXII, consideration of the veto message be limited to 
30 hours of concurrent debate for all messages and the Senate vote on 
passage of the joint resolutions, the objections of the President to 
the contrary notwithstanding, in the following order if a veto message 
is received: S.J. Res. 36, S.J. Res. 38, all remaining joint 
resolutions en bloc. I further ask that the en bloc votes on passage 
and with respect to the override vote be shown separately for each 
resolution when printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the joint resolutions en bloc by number.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S.J. Res. 27) providing for congressional 
     disapproval of the proposed transfer to the United Arab 
     Emirates, United Kingdom and Australia certain defense 
     articles and services;
       A bill (S.J. Res. 28) providing for congressional 
     disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to the 
     United Arab Emirates of certain defense articles and 
     services;
       A bill (S.J. Res. 29) providing for congressional 
     disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to the 
     Kingdom of Saudi Arabia certain defense articles and 
     services;
       A bill (S.J. Res. 30) providing for congressional 
     disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to the 
     United Arab Emirates of certain defense articles and 
     services;
       A bill (S.J. Res. 31) providing for congressional 
     disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to the 
     Kingdom of Saudi Arabia certain defense articles and 
     services;
       A bill (S.J. Res. 32) providing for congressional 
     disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to the 
     Kingdom of Saudi Arabia certain defense articles and 
     services;
       A bill (S.J. Res. 33) providing for congressional 
     disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to the 
     United Arab Emirates of certain defense articles and 
     services;
       A bill (S.J. Res 34) providing for congressional 
     disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to the 
     United Arab Emirates of certain defense articles and 
     services;
       A bill (S.J. Res. 35) providing for congressional 
     disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to the 
     United Arab Emirates of certain defense articles and 
     services;
       A bill (S.J. Res. 36) providing for congressional 
     disapproval of the proposed transfer to the Kingdom of Saudi 
     Arabia, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern 
     Ireland, the Kingdom of Spain, and the Italian Republic of 
     certain defense articles and services;
       A bill (S.J. Res. 37) providing for congressional 
     disapproval of the proposed export to the United Arab 
     Emirates, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern 
     Ireland, and the Republic of France of certain defense 
     articles and services;
       A bill (S.J. Res. 38) providing for congressional 
     disapproval of the proposed export to the Kingdom of Saudi 
     Arabia and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern 
     Ireland of certain defense articles and services;
       A bill (S.J. Res. 39) providing for congressional 
     disapproval of the proposed export to the United Arab 
     Emirates and United Kingdom of certain defense articles, 
     including technical data and defense services;
       A bill (S.J. Res. 40) providing for congressional 
     disapproval of the proposed export to India, Israel, Republic 
     of Korea, and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia of certain defense 
     articles, including technical data and defense services;
       A bill (S.J. Res. 41) providing for congressional 
     disapproval of the proposed export to the Government of Saudi 
     Arabia and the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom of 
     Great Britain and Northern Ireland of technical data and 
     defense services;
       A bill (S.J. Res. 42) providing for congressional 
     disapproval of the proposed export to the United Arab 
     Emirates and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern 
     Ireland of certain defense articles, including technical data 
     and defense services;
       A bill (S.J. Res. 43) providing for congressional 
     disapproval of the proposed transfer to the Kingdom of Saudi 
     Arabia certain defense articles and services;
       A bill (S.J. Res. 44) providing for congressional 
     disapproval of the proposed retransfer of certain defense 
     articles from the United Arab Emirates to the Hashemite 
     Kingdom of Jordan;
       A bill (S.J. Res 45) providing for congressional 
     disapproval of the proposed transfer to the Kingdom of Saudi 
     Arabia certain defense articles and services;
       A bill (S.J. Res. 46) providing for congressional 
     disapproval of the proposed transfer to the United Arab 
     Emirates certain defense articles and services;
       A bill (S.J. Res. 47) providing for congressional 
     disapproval of the proposed transfer to the Kingdom of Saudi 
     Arabia certain defense articles and services; and
       A bill (S.J. Res. 48) providing for congressional 
     disapproval of the proposed transfer to the United Arab 
     Emirates certain defense articles and services.

  There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the 
Senate proceeded to consider the joint resolutions en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I am very pleased that we have been able 
to work on an agreement on the unanimous consent request that the 
majority leader just propagated that would provide for votes on these 
22 joint resolutions of disapproval over the administration's proposed 
arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Emirates.
  I thank the bipartisan group of cosponsors of these resolutions. The 
majority leader and our staff are diligently working through an 
unprecedented process. I would also like to briefly engage the chairman 
of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Risch, in a 
colloquy. I thank the chairman for agreeing to quickly take up two 
priority pieces of legislation.
  Earlier this year, I led a bipartisan group of Senators, including a 
number on the Foreign Relations Committee, in reintroducing legislation 
to hold Saudi Arabia accountable for its devastating actions in Yemen, 
gross human rights abuses, and the murder of American resident Jamal 
Khashoggi.
  I understand the chairman has also been working on such legislation, 
and we have agreed to use his legislation as

[[Page S3832]]

a base text to which we will be able to offer amendments, including 
those that reflect the bipartisan consensus contained in my bill, the 
Saudi Arabia Accountability and Yemen Act.
  Additionally, the chairman has agreed to a markup of the SAFE Act, 
which I believe will take place at a business meeting next week, which 
prospectively eliminates the ability of the President to use emergency 
authority to sell arms to any country that is not a NATO plus five 
member. These votes couldn't be more important.
  I am happy to yield to the chairman.
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I thank the Senator very much. I want to 
associate myself with the remarks of my distinguished Senator from New 
Jersey. I thank him also for the cooperation he has shown in getting us 
a little further down the road on the Saudi Arabia bill.
  The issues regarding this longtime ally of the United States are 
troubling. I don't think there is anyone on this floor who is adverse 
to the idea that action needs to be taken. Obviously, the relationship 
is not the same as it has been for a long time. Having said that, on a 
transactional basis, there are a number of things we are allied with 
Saudi Arabia on.
  Also, having said that, some of the things that have happened cannot 
go unnoticed. There are certainly going to have to be repercussions, 
and we have been negotiating with all parties, including my staff and 
the staff of the ranking member, together with the State Department and 
with the White House. I think we are very close to having a bill that 
could actually pass the Senate, pass the House, and be signed into law 
by the President. I think this is a real step forward; I think it is 
progress on this issue; and I think the structure we have put together 
is in the best interests of all parties.
  So I agree with my friend from New Jersey.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, with that and with the chairman's 
agreement that we will have a markup of these two bills moving forward, 
I thank the distinguished chairman, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                   National Defense Authorization Act

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, over the next few days, Senator Reed and I 
will be leading the consideration of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for 2020. I consider this--and I think he would probably join me on 
this--the most significant bill of the year, and it is the most 
important bill.
  There is an old document no one reads anymore called the 
Constitution, which says what we are really supposed to be doing here. 
No. 1 on the list is defending America, and now this bipartisan bill is 
more important than ever.
  The world is more unstable and dangerous than at any time in my 
lifetime. The National Defense Strategy gave it to us straight. This is 
the document; the National Defense Strategy Commission put this 
together. It was made up of experts, equally divided, Democrats and 
Republicans. We have had several hearings on this. We have had meetings 
and discussed it with our Members. In fact, Senator Jon Kyl, during the 
brief time that he was back as a Member of the Senate, dropped out of 
this and then went back in. He is very active in this, and so are the 
rest.
  None of the individuals here have ever been accused of being in any 
way partisan. What they put together is a defense strategy that is the 
best thing for this country, and they have done a masterful job of this 
and actually put it straight to us.
  The strategic competition with China and Russia is something that is 
relatively new. During the last administration, China and Russia 
started surfacing, and they became more prominent and were challenging 
us in several areas.
  The continuing threats from rogue countries are still important too. 
We are talking about Iran and North Korea and the other terrorist 
organizations.
  New technology and new warfighting domains in outer space and 
cyberspace are things that in recent years have become very prominent, 
and we have to compete. Our peer competitors are out there even stating 
that they are ahead of us, not to mention the years of underfunding by 
the previous administration.
  When you think about the last administration, if you look at using 
fiscal year 2018 dollars and you want to take the last 5 years of the 
previous administration, 2010 had appropriations using constant dollars 
of $794 billion. In 2015, 5 years later, it was $586 billion. So stop 
and think about that. I can't think of any bureaucracy that has taken 
that much of a dive in that period of time. We are talking about 20 
percent.
  So that is the reality we are facing, and this is what we are doing 
right now in trying to get our Defense authorization bill. Again, it 
will pass. That is one of the few things you can do that you know is 
going to pass. It has passed for the last 58 years, and it is going to 
pass this year too.
  Yet we are facing a real national security crisis. There are real 
threats to our military and our way of life, and we are ready to meet 
and defeat these threats. We have to continue rebuilding our military, 
catching up with our competitors, and making strategic and holistic 
improvements to our national defense. I said catch up, and that clearly 
states that we are not ahead right now.
  Using the National Defense Strategy Commission report as our 
blueprint, this year's NDAA pursues ``urgent change at significant 
scale'' to meet the needs of our Nation.
  Our military leaders have said time and again that stable, 
predictable, on-time funding is the single most important way Congress 
can help support a strong national defense. We did this last year, and 
we are going to do it again this year. It is incredibly important that 
we stare down the barrel of sequestration cuts that would, in the words 
of former of Air Force Secretary Wilson, ``be absolutely devastating in 
scope and scale.''
  It is not just her. Others have come before us and said that if we 
were to be subjected to sequestration, it would undo all of the 
corrections that have been made in the last 2\1/2\ years. This would 
undo all of the work we have done to rebuild our readiness. I am 
talking about fiscal years 2018 and 2019.
  We also know that continuing resolutions are no way to do business, 
especially for our military. We have had the military in hearings we 
have had. We have traditionally--this year--two very long hearings on 
defense authorization in our committee. Each witness who comes in talks 
about how devastating it would be if we were to move back to 
sequestration or if we have to undo the improvements that we have made.
  I know this firsthand. When I go out and visit military installations 
in Oklahoma, across the country, and around the world, it is true that 
we sit down with the commanders and the base leaders. But also--and I 
know my good friend Senator Reed does--we go and sit down and eat in 
the mess halls with our kids out there on the frontlines and talk to 
them. I have to tell you, they know what is going on. They know when we 
are dragging our feet on efforts that we have to fund our military. 
They know who is doing it, who isn't doing it, and they are the best 
source of getting that information.
  The NDAA is the first step in the process of getting them that 
military funding. This year, we provided a total of $750 billion to 
ensure our troops have the resources they need to defend our Nation. 
This represents a bare minimum. People talk about $750 billion, but 
stop and think about it. This report says that until we get back to the 
point at which we have the military where it should be, we are going to 
have to increase each year, during this timeframe, somewhere between a 
3 and 5 percent increase--net increase--each year. That is in this book 
here, and that is considered to be a bare minimum. Ironically, that is 
the same figure that our military uses. The NDAA aligns our defense 
resources and policies with our National Defense Strategy, which is 
found in this book.
  Fully funding our military at $750 billion means we will be more 
ready to address great power competition like China and Russia. We are 
seeing our military lose ground. Anything less would keep us from 
regaining our combat advantage and our duty to deter aggression. I am 
using the words carefully. When we say regain, that is what we need to 
do, because we are not there

[[Page S3833]]

now. We can't plan to fight the wars of tomorrow with the weapons and 
equipment of yesterday.
  The NDAA fully funds the Nuclear Modernization Program at or above 
request, including the nuclear triad, and directs funding to procure 
critical equipment.
  The Nuclear Modernization Program has been suffering for a long 
period of time. A lot of people look at the triad system and assume 
that somehow that is a redundancy. It is not. It talks about systems 
that can project a nuclear weapon, and there are three different 
classifications. That is what the triad is all about. It is not as if 
you can take one or two out of it and still do the job.
  In this bill, we have 94 Joint Strike Fighters, 12 new battle force 
ships, 105 naval aircraft, new aircraft for the Air Force, including 
the 15 KC-46As, and new helicopters for the Army, including 9 new 
Chinooks.
  We also have to be prepared to meet challenges in new domains. Space 
is one of those. General Raymond, who is nominated to lead the U.S. 
Base Command, told our committee when we were having a hearing on this 
that our superiority in space is questionable. It is not guaranteed. 
That is work that has to be done. That is what we are finding in this 
bill that we are going to ultimately be voting for in the next few 
days.
  Our society relies on satellites and space technologies. We need to 
address this problem now before it is too late, and I am glad President 
Trump has made this a key initiative.
  We took President Trump's directive to establish a space force and 
came up with a bipartisan plan to establish a force that meets our 
needs in space. Our bill would stand up the U.S. Space Force in the Air 
Force. This will create a cohesive strategy to protect our interests in 
space, improve how we acquire space assets, and improve our space 
warfighting culture.
  People say: Of all the things we are doing right now, we are doing a 
lot of things in space. What does this do that we are not doing 
currently? My answer is nothing. We are doing it all now, but this 
would allow us to do it better. Our plan prevents additional costs and 
bureaucracy and gets us off on the right foot to better fulfill our 
mission in space.
  The legislation also implements policies that would change the way 
the Pentagon is run, allowing it to respond more nimbly and effectively 
to the current defensive landscape.
  Last, but arguably the most important, the NDAA makes our all-
volunteer force--the backbone of our national defense--the biggest 
priority.
  I happen to be one of the few people--in fact, I think I am the only 
one in this Senate Chamber who is a product of the draft. That was back 
in the days when we didn't have an all-volunteer force. I came here 
absolutely convinced that was the best way to go until I started seeing 
what we have out there. When you see these kids and what they are 
doing, it is amazing how effective they are. They are truly the 
backbone of our national defense. Even though our military advantage 
may have been diminished, what hasn't changed are our troops. They are 
still the best in the world. We have to continue to look out for them. 
It is one of the biggest ways we stand apart from our adversaries or 
actors like Russia or China. They don't care about their people. We do.
  A lot of times people ask me: Why is it we have to spend so much 
money on defense? We are spending more money than Russia and China.
  That is easy. Our largest single expense to putting together a 
military is its end strength. It is the people.
  It is the people. We care about the people. We make sure we are doing 
things that are good for the people. I remember we had this big 
discussion on the privatization of commissaries not too long ago. That 
was something where that is a benefit. It doesn't cost us any more, I 
contend, but that is a great benefit for those people--the spouses and 
members of the military--in remote places. That is where they go. That 
is where everybody wants to go. So it is true that it costs more, but 
that is because Russians--it goes without saying, Russians and the 
Chinese, they don't really care about the people. They are going to 
tell them to go out and fight. They have to do it. That is the largest 
single item. They don't have that; we do, and we are better off for it. 
That is what this is all about. It will put us back to where we are on 
top. We are not second in any of these areas.
  It provides the 3.1-percent pay raise for our troops, and that is the 
largest we have had in 10 years.
  We improved the quality of life for our troops and their families, 
making sure our troops have quality healthcare and a solid roof over 
their heads.
  Just a few months ago, our committee became aware of some really 
serious problems in housing. This is only just about last February. 
This is something--frankly, I was one of the guilty parties because we 
privatized housing some time ago. That was something that--yes, in a 
way, it sure makes it easier for us. It makes it easier for the 
military. All of a sudden, we found ourselves in a situation where we 
sent out bids. We had contractors who were bidding to do the housing 
work. Then we found out that--it worked fine for a couple years, but 
then, as time went by--this is human nature--people got careless. I 
think the contractors got a little bit greedy. So all of a sudden, we 
found out we had housing for our people that had mold and all kinds of 
serious problems. So we had a hearing on this. Actually, we had two 
hearings on this. One was to listen to the tenants all throughout 
America who were talking about how deplorable that condition was, and 
the other one was we brought in the contractors and talked to them. The 
thing that impressed me was, during the second hearing of the 
contractors, they admitted there was a problem. They said: There is. We 
have become a little too relaxed. They started to clean up their act, 
but just in case they did not do that, we actually put a lot of those 
provisions in this bill that we are going to be considering now. It 
includes a Tenant Bill of Rights. We weren't going to do this until the 
end of the summer. We were going to have another hearing and talk about 
what we needed to do to correct the problem, but we already know. They 
went out there, and they looked.
  So in this bill, we have a Tenant Bill of Rights. We have private 
housing partners being held accountable, ensuring each installation has 
the right personnel to conduct oversight. Overall, we make sure our 
military has the infrastructure to support it. Within the funding for 
military construction, $3.6 billion is set aside to replenish funds 
that may be used to build a wall. There has been a lot of criticism. 
People are saying: Well, you used some military funds--maybe some of 
the funds that were going to be used for military construction. If that 
is the case, we have $3.6 billion set aside here to replenish any funds 
that might have been used to build a wall. So they don't have that 
argument anymore.
  As I said before, this legislation is legislation that all of our 
colleagues from both sides of the aisle can support. Defense needs to 
be our No. 1 priority. We may not agree on everything, but we can 
definitely agree on that.
  The Senate Armed Services Committee approved the bill on an 
overwhelming bipartisan basis--25 to 2--in only 6 hours. This is kind 
of interesting. Each year it falls this way--I guess, intentionally. On 
a Wednesday, we get together at 9 in the morning. The Defense 
Authorization Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee meet. 
We go over what we are going to have to do in terms of this bill, and 
we get it done. We got this done actually in 6 hours. I thought that 
was a record, and we did it in a little less than that time this time, 
but we had a product that was 25 to 2. Only two people voted against 
it. We completed this work quickly--less than 2 months after receiving 
the administration's budget request. It was my goal to get this done as 
soon as possible. I thank the committee and the staff for helping to 
get this done.
  We all understand the importance of this bill. This is the most 
important bill of the year. I think most people understand that and 
agree to that. On this committee, we considered 433 amendments and 
approved nearly 300 of them. Our markup took 6 hours just because of 
our shared commitment to working together.
  So I want to thank, particularly, the ranking member of the Senate 
Armed Services Committee, Senator Reed, and every member of the 
committee

[[Page S3834]]

working to pass this critical legislation. I want to thank the majority 
leader, Senator McConnell, for his leadership and for continuing to 
fight for a budget deal that includes a strong top line for our 
defense.
  I look forward to continuing this fair, corroborative process on the 
floor in the coming days. We are going to consider amendments. Both 
Senator Reed and I want an open amendment process. Then we are going to 
pass this bill for the 59th straight year in a row. For nearly 6 
decades, Congress has understood the necessity of a strong, capable, 
lethal force. The main reason America is the leader of the free world 
is because of our military might. Our Armed Forces are the very best in 
the world. Our leadership values pave the way for liberty, prosperity, 
and security across the globe. We preserve peace through our strength. 
Who else said that? Ronald Reagan talked about the necessity to be 
strong so we can avoid the very type of threats that are out there. 
Freedom isn't free. We understand that. We want to preserve this vital 
role--a role that guarantees a future of freedom and democracy for our 
children and grandchildren. We have to prioritize our national 
security. That is what we have been doing with this NDAA, and that is 
why we are going to continue to do it with the passage of this bill.
  Again, I want to express my appreciation. It is a tough bill, and we 
have spent a lot of hours together, Senator Reed and I, and I think we 
have something now that is going to be going through. We do have an 
amendment process. It is an open amendment process, and we plan to do 
that and get that done.

                          ____________________