[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 204 (Tuesday, December 17, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7061-S7070]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020--CONFERENCE 
                            REPORT--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume legislative 
session.
  Under the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of the 
conference report to accompany S. 1790, which will be stated by title.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the votes of the two Houses 
     on the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 1790) to 
     authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2020 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, having met, have agreed 
     that the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment 
     of the House and agree to the same with an amendment and the 
     House agree to the same, signed by a majority of the 
     conferees on the part of both Houses.


[[Page S7062]]


  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     National Labor Relations Board

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come here today to address the current 
status of the National Labor Relations Board and, in particular, how 
the rights of workers are being undermined by Republican 
obstructionism. You see, for decades, Presidents have nominated--and 
Democrats and Republicans in the Senate have confirmed--NLRB nominees 
from both parties in order to ensure the agency can enforce laws 
necessary to protect workers' rights.
  Yet, for the first time in the history of the Board, we are now left 
with zero Democratic members on the Board because of Republican 
inactions. To say this is highly problematic is an understatement. We 
will be left with zero Democrats, because, yesterday, Lauren McFerran's 
term expired. Now, Lauren McFerran is a dedicated, highly-qualified, 
and well-respected public servant.
  Despite the repeated requests my colleagues and I have sent to the 
White House, President Trump refuses to renominate Ms. McFerran. Last 
year, Republicans in the Senate stalled the renomination of another 
exceptionally qualified nominee to the NLRB, Mark Gaston Pearce. How? 
Just by simply refusing to hold the vote--instead, allowing that seat 
to remain empty. Now, workers are confronted with a Board made up 
solely of three Republicans and zero Democrats to serve on this 
historically bipartisan agency.
  That is simply unacceptable. I get it--Board members, nominations, 
Washington infighting--to many folks, this may seem like ``inside 
baseball,'' but let me explain what this will mean for everyday people. 
When workers stand together to form a union, the NLRB ensures that the 
election is fair. If a worker is fired or unfairly punished because 
they want to join a former union, the NLRB is there and tasked with 
protecting their rights. If a company refuses to negotiate fairly with 
unions who are fighting for higher rates or better benefits or safer 
working conditions, it is the NLRB that safeguards those rights that 
have helped build our country's middle class.
  Quite frankly, the NLRB is a critical worker protections agency, and 
workers across the country will suffer because of the Republicans' 
dereliction of duty, especially as the Republican NLRB members are now 
mired in allegations of ethics issues. They are pursuing an aggressive 
rulemaking agenda that will gut workers' rights and are undermining 
efforts that will enforce protections for workers. It is clear that 
workers in this country today cannot afford, now, an imbalanced and 
increasingly partisan NLRB.
  By the way, that is just the latest example of Republicans standing 
in the way of Democratic nominees. I am still waiting for a Democratic 
nominee to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission after 
Republicans blocked the renomination of Chai Feldblum last year.
  I am deeply disappointed by the inaction of the Republicans. I 
deplore them to return to the normal process. The NLRB must not become 
a playing field for partisan politics. We need to end this 
obstructionism and fill these seats without any further delay.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  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. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic Leader is recognized.


                              Impeachment

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I just listened to Leader McConnell's 
lengthy response to my letter proposing the outlines of a fair 
impeachment trial in the Senate. Leader McConnell was apparently upset 
that I sent him the letter on Sunday, saying the first step was for the 
two leaders to meet and then discuss a resolution. Well, if we were 
allowed to show a video here on the Senate floor of a Republican 
leader's appearance on Sean Hannity's program last week, it would 
expose the fallacy of his argument.
  Leader McConnell, unfortunately, skipped his first step when he began 
publicly talking about the rules of a Senate trial, telling Hannity 
that he would be taking cues from the White House and his idea for how 
to conduct a trial long before any conversation--which he still hasn't 
had--with me. My letter was intended as a good-faith proposal to kick-
start the discussions that Leader McConnell has so far delayed in 
scheduling. I still expect we will sit down and discuss trial 
parameters despite his public appearances on FOX News, but let me say 
this: I listened to the leader's speech. I did not hear a single 
argument as to why the witnesses I suggested should not give testimony. 
Impeachment trials, like most trials, have witnesses. To have none 
would be an aberration.
  Why is the President so afraid of having these witnesses come 
testify? What are they afraid the witnesses would say? I would like to 
hear Leader McConnell come to the floor and give specific reasons why 
the four witnesses we have asked for should not testify. I do not know 
what they will say. They are President Trump appointees. They might 
have something exculpatory to say about President Trump, or they might 
not, but they are certainly the four key people who saw exactly what 
was going on.
  What is Leader McConnell afraid of? What is President Trump afraid 
of? The truth? But the American people want the truth, and that is why 
we have asked for witnesses and documents to get at the whole truth and 
nothing but.
  This week, the House of Representatives will vote on Articles of 
Impeachment against the President of the United States. If these 
articles pass the House, the Constitution dictates that the Senate 
serve as a court of impeachment. Conducting an impeachment trial is a 
tremendously weighty and solemn responsibility entrusted to us by our 
Founders. If such a trial is to happen, Democrats strongly believe it 
must be fair, and the American people must regard it as fair. A fair 
trial is one that allows Senators to get all the relevant facts and 
adjudicate the case impartially.
  In the letter I sent to Leader McConnell, I proposed a very 
reasonable structure for a fair trial. I have sent that same letter to 
every one of my colleagues, Democrat and Republican. There is a grand 
tradition in America, speedy and fair trials. We want both. The leader 
seems obsessed with speedy and wants to throw fair out the window.
  To simply repeat the arguments that were made in the House and 
Senate, when there are witnesses and documents that could shed light on 
what actually happened, why not have them? Let's hear a single word of 
answer to that. We have heard none. In fact, the American people want 
it as well. A poll today in the Washington Post/ABC says 72 percent of 
Americans want to hear these witnesses; 64 percent of Republicans do. 
The American people are fair. They don't want a coverup. They don't 
want concealment. This is weighty stuff.
  The House has put together a very, very strong case that the 
President abused his power and wanted to let a foreign power interfere 
in our elections. That goes to the heart of what our democracy is and 
what the Founding Fathers warned against. Now, to not allow witnesses 
to come forward who would be able to discuss what actually happened--if 
we don't have them, the trial won't be fair. The four witnesses we 
proposed have direct knowledge of why aid to Ukraine was delayed, and 
the administration's request for Ukraine to conduct two investigations 
for political reasons, they have direct knowledge of those facts.
  We don't know, as I said, what kind of evidence they will present. It 
may be incriminating. It may be exculpatory. It may influence how 
Senators vote. It may not. But they certainly ought to be heard. By 
virtue of their senior positions in the White House, each witness we 
named was directly involved in the events that led to the charges made 
by the House.
  We have also proposed subpoenaing certain records, including emails 
by certain key officials that are directly related to the charges 
brought by the

[[Page S7063]]

House. I believe these documents are also of great importance to making 
Senators have the information necessary to make a fully informed 
decision, this terribly weighty decision.
  The House has built a very strong case against the President. Maybe 
that is why Leader McConnell doesn't seem to want witnesses--at least 
not to agree to them now. Maybe that is why the President is afraid, 
because the House case is so strong that they don't want witnesses who 
might corroborate it.
  The evidence the House put together includes public testimony given 
under oath by numerous senior officials appointed by President Trump. 
These are Trump appointees we are calling, not some partisan Democrat.
  Some Republican Senators have said that while the charges are 
serious, they haven't seen enough evidence to make a decision. That is 
one of the reasons I proposed subpoenas for these witnesses and 
documents--all directly relevant--from officials who have yet to 
testify under oath during any stage of the House process.
  Senators who oppose this plan will have to explain why less evidence 
is better than more evidence. Let me say that again to every Senator in 
this room, Democrat and Republican: Senators who oppose this plan will 
have to explain why less evidence is better than more evidence, and 
they are going to have to explain that position to a public that is 
understandably skeptical when they see an administration suppressing 
evidence and blocking senior officials from telling the truth about 
what they know.
  Let me repeat this Washington Post/ABC poll I read about in the paper 
just this morning. Seventy-one percent of Americans believe the 
President should allow his top aides to testify in a potential Senate 
trial. Seventy-two percent of Independents and 64 percent of 
Republicans--64 percent of Republicans--think President Trump should 
allow his top aides to testify in a potential Senate trial--7 out of 10 
Americans.
  The American people have a wisdom, which seems to be lacking with 
some of my colleagues, that a trial without witnesses is not a trial. 
It is a rush to judgment. It is a sham trial.
  The American people understand that a trial without relevant 
documents is not a fair trial. Again, it is a desire not for sunlight 
but for darkness to conceal facts that may well be very relevant.
  The American people understand that if you are trying to conceal 
evidence and block testimony, it is probably not because the evidence 
is going to help your case. It is because you are trying to cover 
something up.
  President Trump: Are you worried about what these witnesses would 
say? If you are not worried, let them come forward. And if you are 
worried, we ought to hear from them.
  Again, the Republican leader went on for 15, 20 minutes without 
giving a single argument for why these witness shouldn't testify or 
these documents shouldn't be produced--unless the President has 
something to hide.
  In the coming weeks, every Senator will have a choice: Do they want a 
fair, honest trial that examines all the facts or do they want a trial 
that doesn't let all of the facts come out?
  We will have votes during this proceeding, should the House send it 
to us--when they send it to us. After voting for it, we will have votes 
on whether these people should testify and whether these documents 
should be made public and part of the trial.
  The American people will be watching. They will be watching. Who is 
for an open and fair trial? Who is for hiding facts--relevant facts, 
immediate facts? Who is for covering up?
  I expect to discuss this proposal for a fair trial with Leader 
McConnell, but each individual Senator will have both the power and the 
responsibility to help shape what an impeachment trial looks like.
  In Federalist 65, Alexander Hamilton wondered:

       Where else than in the Senate could have been found a 
     tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent 
     [to serve as a court of impeachment]? What other body would 
     be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH . . . to preserve unawed 
     and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality?

  My colleagues, Leader McConnell: Are you, in Alexander Hamilton's 
words, unawed and uninfluenced to produce the necessary impartiality or 
will you participate in a coverup?
  Can we live up to Hamilton's fine words with dignity, independence, 
and confidence to preserve the necessary impartiality to conduct a fair 
trial? That question should weigh heavily upon every single Senator.


                             appropriations

  Before the week concludes, we must pass legislation to keep the 
government open and provide appropriations for the following year. 
Luckily, over the weekend, an agreement was reached between 
appropriators--House and Senate, Democrat and Republican--that would 
see us achieve that goal.
  I am proud to report that the final appropriations agreements 
includes several important Democratic priorities to help American 
families.
  Democrats have secured more than $425 million in election security 
grants, nearly double the amount Senate Republicans reluctantly 
supported in earlier legislation.
  Democrats have secured an increase of $550 million in grants to help 
offset the cost of childcare for low-income families.
  Democrats have made progress on a number of fronts to combat climate 
change: Record-level funding for clean energy and energy efficiency 
programs; record-level funding to provide clean, electric buses; and 
increased funding for climate change science and research.
  For the first time in decades, Democrats have secured $25 million in 
gun violence research at the CDC and NIH, breaking through what had 
been a ridiculous ban on gun violence research.
  Medical research, scientific research, environmental protection, 
education, and housing programs will all see significant increases in 
federal support.
  Of course, we did not achieve everything we wanted. I am sorely 
disappointed that we were unable to reach an agreement on more 
resources to clean up PFAS contamination, a toxic chemical that has 
plagued too many communities in my home State of New York and 
communities across the country.
  Senate Democrats have done a lot of hard work on this issue. Our 
disappointment today will in no way diminish our resolve to force 
Congress to take action on PFAS next year.


                     national labor relations board

  Yesterday, the term of National Labor Relations Board member Lauren 
McFerran expired. For the first time in over 35 years, the Nation's 
most important labor protection agency is now without a single 
Democratic board member to defend labor rights.
  For nearly eight decades, the NLRB has been the Nation's top agency 
fighting for the protection of workers' rights, including the right to 
form a union and collectively bargain for better wages, benefits, and 
safer conditions. Over the past three years, as President Trump has 
sought to undermine these protections, Democratic members of the Board 
have been crucial in pushing back. The NLRB was designed to be 
bipartisan, but I fear that with Ms. McFerran's departure, an all-
Republican NLRB--without a strong pro-worker, pro-labor voice--will not 
stand in the way of President Trump's dismantling of worker 
protections, and may even help accelerate it.
  The President has claimed to be a champion for working Americans, but 
over the last 3 years, he has shown that he is anything but. From 
opposing minimum wage increases to reversing rules that protect workers 
on the job . . . to nominating people like Eugene Scalia to the 
Department of Labor and Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, the 
President has put powerful corporate interests before workers' 
interests. Meanwhile, Senate Republicans have stonewalled Democratic 
nominees to the NLRB. Working Americans will remember the record as 
2020 fast approaches.


                                 china

  Last Friday, President Trump announced a temporary, partial trade 
agreement with China. After 8 months of negotiations, it is stunning 
how little this deal achieved for the United States at such a high cost 
to American workers and businesses.
  In exchange for a drastic reduction in our leverage, China has made 
some short-term assurances to buy more agricultural products from us 
without real commitments to end its most rapacious trade practices. It 
appears that

[[Page S7064]]

President Trump has ordered a retreat while declaring victory.
  I have been very open about praising President Trump's tough stance 
on negotiating with China. To succeed in these high-stakes 
negotiations, I have urged the President to stay tough and not settle 
for photo ops or weak deals. I have said that he must be prepared to 
walk away if China refuses to make significant, credible, and 
enforceable concessions.
  But under this new, temporary deal, President Trump is selling the 
farm for a few magic soybeans. By USTR Lighthizer's admission, last 
week's deal fails to make significant progress on ending China's worst 
trade abuses, like intellectual property theft, forced technology 
transfers, illegal dumping, and more. That is not nearly good enough. 
And I worry that President Trump, by cutting this small, insubstantial 
deal, has made the success of future, more difficult negotiations much 
more doubtful.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida). The Senator from 
Kentucky.


                                S. 1790

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, we have before us today the National Defense 
Authorization Act to authorize the programs and policies of the 
Department of Defense. We will be taking a vote to finalize this bill 
shortly.
  Our national defense is incredibly important. It is mandated in the 
Constitution. Our national defense is arguably Congress's primary 
constitutional responsibility.
  I have great respect and honor for those in uniform who serve. In 
fact, I recently introduced a bill to give each soldier who served in 
the War on Terror a $2,500 bonus and, at the same time, officially end 
the war in Afghanistan. Ending the Afghan war would save us about $50 
billion a year.
  Unfortunately, the bill before us does not end any of our multitude 
of wars. The bill before us simply continues the status quo and throws 
more money around the world at conflicts we can't even begin to fathom.
  Before rubberstamping more money, it is worth a moment for us to take 
a step back and consider two things. First, we need to ask ourselves 
whether borrowing millions of dollars year after year to fuel our 
appetite for more military spending is a wise policy in the years 
ahead.
  Second, we need to look at how this bill has been loaded up to carry 
things only somewhat related or not related at all to national defense.
  As I have reminded my colleagues often, Admiral Mullen, the former 
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the national debt was 
our greatest national security threat. His exact wording was ``the most 
significant threat to our national security is our debt.'' That was in 
2010.
  When he made that remark, our debt was only $13 trillion. Our debt is 
now over $23 trillion. We just keep borrowing and borrowing, and there 
is no end in sight.
  Under the new budget deal passed by Republicans and Democrats, we are 
borrowing $2.75 billion every day. In fact, we are borrowing nearly $2 
million every minute.
  We spend more on our military than the next seven largest militaries 
combined. Our Defense Department is so large that it took them a decade 
to even figure out how to audit themselves. Then they said that the 
audit itself would cost over half a billion dollars. But then, last 
year, they arrived back at square one. After all that effort, they 
said: Well, we just can't figure it out. It is too big. We can't audit 
the Army, the Navy, the Marines, or the Air Force.
  We spend so much money that the Department of Defense literally can't 
keep track of all of it. We don't have a great idea of exactly how much 
we are wasting because no one can get a grip on how much is being 
spent.
  A few years ago, the Defense Business Board, which is a defense 
advisory panel of corporate executives who report to the Secretary of 
Defense, recommended that the Department of Defense can save $125 
billion in administrative expenses.
  According to news accounts, that report scared everyone at the 
Pentagon, so they buried the report. They even tried to keep it away 
from Congress for fear that Congress might actually do something with 
it, although I wouldn't be holding my breath or too worried. I am not 
familiar with Congress ever cutting anything.
  We are set to spend $738 billion on the military this year. That is 
up $22 billion from last year. Over the past 6 years, military spending 
has risen over $120 billion. We say that we are for accountability, 
efficiency, and savings. Yet we keep piling good money after bad. How 
can we demand better accounting and efficiency when we budget increases 
every year?
  To be clear, I support our national defense. Supporting our 
servicemembers is a worthy cause. There are things in this bill that I 
do support. I am a cosponsor of the bill to eliminate the so-called 
widow's tax, and I have argued that it is the right thing to do. We 
should find the money to pay for it. That is in this bill.
  I support returning the 101st Airborne at Fort Campbell to its full 
air assault capacity with the return of a combat aviation brigade. That 
is in this bill.
  I support giving our servicemembers a pay increase. That is in the 
bill. But I take issue when Congress adds other things to this bill 
that don't have anything to do with our military.
  This bill would sanction NATO allies and potentially American energy 
companies if they have any involvement with Nord Stream 2 pipeline. 
This is a pipeline between Russia and Germany. The pipeline is 
basically done. It may well be completed in the next few months. The 
pipeline will be completed. Yet we want to jeopardize our relationship 
with our allies and with businesses both in Europe and America.
  This bill would also drop more sanctions into the middle of the 
Syrian civil war, as well as funding for so-called ``vetted'' Syrian 
rebel groups. All this would do is prolong the Syrian civil war and, 
with it, the humanitarian suffering and displacement we have seen in 
the region. The Syrian civil war is largely over. I agree with 
President Trump that it is time to come home.
  Another problem with our insatiable appetite for more military 
spending is that it requires conservatives to make bad compromises. If 
you want $40 billion in new defense spending, then you have to give the 
liberals $40 billion new domestic spending. If anything, that is the 
real nature of today's bipartisanship: You can have your money as long 
as we get our money.
  The dirty little secret in Washington is that there is actually too 
much compromise. Republicans want more military spending; Democrats 
want more welfare money. And with each new Congress, Congress always 
chooses to spend and borrow more money.
  For example, this bill provides a new mandatory benefit program: paid 
parental leave for all Federal employees, starting next year. The 
program will cost over $3 billion forever--and most of these programs 
continue to expand forever. The program will cost $3 billion a year, 
and, of course, there is nothing in the bill that tells how we are 
going to pay for it. So we are going to have paid leave, everybody, but 
we are going to borrow the money from China to give this great benefit.
  In essence, today, Congress is simply saying: Add it to my tab; the 
deficit be damned. Regardless of how you feel about the issue, this 
represents a better benefit than many working Americans enjoy, and it 
has nothing to do with national defense.
  Conservatism is more than supporting military spending at any cost. 
We have to do more and make tough decisions that enable a strong 
national defense and a balanced budget.
  Many so-called conservatives will hail this bloated military 
spending, but, in truth, there is nothing fiscally conservative about 
borrowing money from China to pay for our military. In fact, I would 
argue that borrowing money to buy more tanks or planes or to police the 
far corners of the Earth actually damages our national security.
  Some have argued that our military is hollowed out, exhausted from so 
many far-flung conflicts--probably true. They will argue that we must 
expand military spending to meet the mission.
  Perhaps we should entertain the opposite argument. Perhaps it is not 
that our military budget is too small but

[[Page S7065]]

that our military mission is too large. I, for one, hope for a day when 
Congress rediscovers that our constitutional mandate is to defend 
America first and only to become involved in war as a last resort and, 
even then, America should only become involved in war when Congress has 
debated and done its constitutional duty to declare war.
  Until that day, I will continue to argue that the only fiscally 
conservative, fiscally responsible action is to vote against expanding 
the military budget. I encourage my fellow Senators to consider that.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his words. I will 
add to that, I hope.
  As we approach the end of the first session of Congress, I think it 
may be prudent to look back at some of the news surrounding the current 
state of the Nation's budgetary affairs. Unfortunately, none of the 
news is good.
  This past summer, Congress passed the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019, 
which increased the last 2 years of the Budget Control Act's 
discretionary funding caps. The Congressional Budget Office tells us 
that the bill has increased their forecast of the Nation's projected 
deficits by $1.7 trillion over the next 10 years.
  I will be the first to admit that it is largely due to mandatory 
programs, which already have inadequate revenues.
  In the fall, we received final tax and spending data for fiscal year 
2019. The report showed the deficit for the last fiscal year was $984 
billion, even though revenues were greater than ever before. Relative 
to the size of the economy, that deficit--an estimated 4.6 percent of 
GDP--was the highest since 2012. This also marked the fourth 
consecutive year the deficit increased as a share of the economy. These 
growing deficits at a time of economic strength should be a warning 
sign to all. Yet hardly a whimper was heard.
  In October, our national debt hit the $23 trillion mark. It was in 
the papers for a while, but interest quickly waned. We simply cannot 
continue down this path.
  I know the bill before us is well-intentioned, and it contains many 
proposals that I support. Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Reed and 
our Armed Services colleagues have worked hard to deliver the Defense 
authorization bill, and I commend them for the work they put into 
trying to reach agreement with the House. Unfortunately, CBO tells us 
this bill will significantly add to our debt both in the near and long 
term. This is much different than the budgetary impact of the bill the 
Senate approved earlier this year.
  Ultimately, this bill furthers the practice of passing legislation 
while ignoring the budget rules of the Senate and our overspending 
problem. All of this borrowing will continue to cost us increased 
interest payments and will hamstring future generations of Americans. 
Congress has the power to correct course now, and I look forward to 
working in good faith with the proponents of this legislation. Until 
that work can be completed, I have to oppose it.
  Mr. President, the conference report accompanying S. 1790 would cause 
a deficit increase of more than $5 billion in each of the four 
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in fiscal year 2030. A benefit 
that isn't funded, once put in place, will never be taken away or even 
reduced. This increase violates section 3101 of the 2016 budget 
resolution. Therefore, I raise a point of order under section 3101(b) 
of S. Con. Res. 11, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 
year 2016. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that this point of order be 
debatable until the postcloture time on the conference report to 
accompany S. 1790 expires.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the fiscal year 2020 
National Defense Authorization Act. After several weeks of debate and 
negotiation, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees have 
completed the conference report, which addresses critical issues facing 
our military and our country's national security.
  I would like to thank Senator Inhofe, Chairman Smith, and Ranking 
Member Thornberry for their thoughtfulness, hard work, and cooperation 
throughout the process.
  This was not an easy conference. There were many difficult issues and 
differences of opinion that had to be worked through. I think it is 
safe to say that many have misgivings about one provision or another, 
but there are so many other positive provisions that many will consider 
a legislative successes, in my view. That is the art of compromise. 
Overall, it is a very good conference report that helps the military 
and the American people. Last week, this conference report passed by a 
vote of 379 to 48 in the House, and I hope it will have the same strong 
support in the Senate.
  As we consider the conference report, I would like to highlight 
several areas that I am particularly pleased with and address several 
items that have been of concern to some Members.
  In accordance with the budget agreement, the NDAA conference report 
authorizes $658.4 billion for the Department of Defense and national 
security programs of the Department of Energy, $71.5 billion for 
overseas contingency operations, and $5.3 billion in emergency funding 
to restore installations that were damaged by extreme weather and 
natural disasters.
  The conference report includes a number of important provisions to 
support our servicemembers, their families, and the civilian employees 
of the Department of Defense who support them, including a 3.1-percent 
pay raise for troops and the authorization of a number of bonus, 
special, and incentive pays to encourage enlistment and reenlistment in 
the Armed Forces.
  We continue our efforts to eliminate sexual harassment and assault in 
our military. Over the last 12 years, we have legislated nearly 200 
changes in law to combat sexual assault. In this conference report, we 
direct the Comptroller General to assess the implementation and 
effectiveness of these requirements.
  We also include a number of new provisions to continue our fight 
against this scourge, including increasing investigative resources to 
expedite investigations, increasing access to Victims' Legal Counsel 
and Victim Witness Program liaisons to support survivors of sexual 
assault, requiring additional training for commanders, and requiring 
more transparency with sexual assault survivors about the progress of 
court-martial and administrative processes. We also include new 
provisions to more effectively address domestic violence and child 
exploitation. We cannot rest. We must continue to insist that we do all 
we can to prevent this scourge from permeating our military forces.
  The conference report also includes the Fair Chance Act, which 
ensures that applicants for positions in the Federal Government and 
with Federal contractors are treated fairly by restricting requests for 
criminal background information until the conditional offer stage.
  As everyone is aware, the conference report includes 12 weeks of paid 
parental leave for the Federal civilian workforce, an important benefit 
that will help the Federal Government recruit and retain the very best 
civilian talent.
  The conference report authorizes a number of important Army and Air 
Force programs. The final bill supports funding for 73 UH-6M Blackhawks 
and 48 AH-64 Apache helicopters in the Army.
  In addition, the conference bill authorizes an additional $75.6 
million to accelerate the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft Program, 
which is a top modernization priority for the U.S. Army. The agreement 
also fully supports upgrading 165 Abrams tanks and includes an 
additional $249.2 million to integrate a medium caliber weapon system 
onto the Stryker platform. This was an unfunded armor requirement which 
we were able to meet.

  With regard to the Air Force, the conference report includes $1 
billion for 12 additional F-35A aircraft, which was an unfunded 
requirement for the Air Force, as well as $392 million for 4 additional 
C-130J aircraft to support increased inter-theater airlift capability. 
The bill also includes language that extends the Department's authority 
to protect critical facilities and assets from unauthorized operation 
of unmanned aircraft.

[[Page S7066]]

  I am pleased the conference agreement includes key provisions and 
authorizes critical funding that will strengthen naval readiness and 
submarine production. This conference report reaffirms that we must 
maintain a minimum of 11 aircraft carriers to protect our national 
interests around the world and authorizes the first year appropriations 
for the midlife refueling of the USS Harry S. Truman.
  It continues the construction of two Virginia-class submarines per 
year and supports the nine-boat multiyear contract, with an option for 
a tenth boat, that the Navy and Electric Boat signed earlier this 
month.
  The report also supports full funding for the Columbia-class 
ballistic missile submarine.
  I am particularly pleased that the conference agreement also 
authorizes additional funding to continue to support the expansion of 
the submarine industrial business, as well as workforce development.
  The conference report further bolsters maritime sealift and 
mobilization by reauthorizing the Maritime Administration, including 
authorizing a new cable security fleet program and requiring the 
Secretary of the Navy to seek to enter into a contract for additional 
sealift vessels.
  Finally, in order to keep our existing ships ready for deployment, 
the conference agreement authorizes additional funding for Navy ship 
and submarine depot maintenance to ensure key shipyard availabilities 
are not further delayed due to the existing maintenance backlog.
  The conference agreement authorizes full funding for the President's 
request to continue modernizing our nuclear deterrence and its triad of 
delivery platforms, which are rapidly aging out. This modernization 
effort began in 2010 and will continue for the next 15 to 20 years. Our 
ballistic submarines will begin to age out in the 2030s. Our heavy 
bombers will be replaced in the 2040s, after having served for over 80 
years. And our ICBMs will start to be replaced in the 2030s, after 
having been on alert 24/7, 365-days a year, for over 60 years.
  On the issue of low-yield nuclear weapons, while I opposed the 
deployment of the low-yield submarine ballistic missile in last year's 
bill and supported the provision in this year's House bill, which again 
would have prohibited deployment, that provision was not included in 
this year's conference report. I maintain that this is one weapon that 
will not add to our national security but would only increase the risk 
of miscalculation with dire consequences, and regret the House 
provision was not included in the House report.
  Perhaps the most bipartisan topic in the fiscal year 2020 NDAA was 
privatized housing reform. Over 30 provisions were included to help the 
Defense Department reinvigorate its oversight of housing companies. 
Over the last year, the Armed Service Committee received hundreds of 
calls for help directly from military families. Their stories of 
hardship, photos of substandard home conditions, and reports of 
nonresponsive customer service by the housing companies spurred this 
comprehensive package of reforms.
  While this will likely not be the last NDAA to address housing 
problems, the fiscal year 2020 bill makes a significant first step in 
several key areas. For example, we begin by requiring several standards 
in the ``tenant bill of rights.''
  We ensure that DOD has a single individual in charge of privatized 
housing and, in the event housing companies are found to be responsible 
for causing medical problems, there will be a way for families to be 
compensated appropriately. Families will now be guaranteed access to 
work order systems and see what kind of home they are inhabiting prior 
to moving in, much like consumers get a Carfax report before they buy a 
used car. Companies must now disclose their bonus structures, document 
a complaint database made by families online, and are prohibited from 
forcing families to sign nondisclosure agreements.
  The DOD must also create and implement a standardized formal dispute 
resolution process and a uniform lease across all installations.
  We still have a long way to go as a Congress to ensure military 
families are getting the kinds of quality homes and living conditions 
they deserve, but the fiscal year 2020 NDAA sets everyone on the right 
path, and we will continue to be watching both DOD and the housing 
companies.
  In another area of importance to the safety of all families, after 
too many years of status quo, the NDAA includes a number of new 
authorities and requirements for the DOD to confront its use of toxic 
PFAS chemicals. While we were ultimately unable to reach an agreement 
with the House establishing new regulations through the Safe Drinking 
Water Act and other substantial improvements, like cleanup via CERCLA 
and declarations of hazardous substances, the NDAA does make a number 
of new changes. For example, the Department of Defense must phase out 
the use of PFAS in firefighting foams on its installations. The bill 
restores the National Guard's access to defense environmental 
restoration accounts, presses DOD to enter cooperative agreements with 
local entities contaminated by PFAS chemicals, and extends the ongoing 
CDC human health study of PFAS in drinking water.
  With respect to countering the continued threat by ISIS, the bill 
extends the train-and-equip programs that underpin our partnerships 
with the Syrian defense forces and Iraqi security forces, while 
ensuring appropriate congressional oversight of the use of such funds.
  Specific to Iraq, the bill also begins to normalize security 
assistance to Iraq by transitioning funding to enduring authorities.
  The conference report also includes the bipartisan Caesar Syria 
Civilian Protection Act, which is intended to help facilitate an end to 
the conflict in Syria and hold responsible those who have perpetrated 
war crimes. Specifically, the bill sanctions foreign persons who 
knowingly provide significant financial, material, or technological 
support to or knowingly engage in a significant transaction with the 
Syrian Government and authorizes the Secretary of State to provide 
support to entities conducting criminal investigations, supporting 
prosecutions, or collecting evidence against those who have committed 
war crimes or crimes against humanity in Syria.
  With regard to Afghanistan, the bill extends several authorities to 
train and equip the Afghanistan National Defense and Security Forces. 
It also authorizes the Department of Defense to provide support for 
bottom-up, Governor of Afghanistan-led reconciliation activities and 
mandates that the Secretary of State, in coordination with the 
Secretary of Defense, advocate for the inclusion of Afghan women in 
ongoing future negotiations to end the conflict in Afghanistan. It is 
in the interest of all parties to forge a negotiated settlement that 
brings this conflict to a close while also protecting U.S. security 
interests and basic human rights.
  The bill also includes 4,000 additional special immigrant visas and 
the extension of the SIV Program so we can continue to honor 
commitments made to our wartime allies in Afghanistan.
  As recent press reports indicate, after almost 18 years of combat and 
capacity building, Afghan military and political institutions are 
fragile, and the Taliban remains a serious threat. Moreover, terrorist 
groups like al-Qaida and ISIS continue to pose a potential threat to 
the region and beyond. The Armed Services Committee and other 
committees of jurisdiction must undertake a comprehensive evaluation of 
the causes of the current situation and help facilitate a thoughtful 
way ahead.
  The conference report also contains a number of provisions to address 
the continuing threat of foreign malign influence from Russia and 
others countries. Deterring and countering this threat to our democracy 
is critical ahead of the 2020 Presidential elections.
  The bill requires an update to our strategy for countering Russian 
malign influence, which needs to be better coordinated across U.S. 
Government Departments and Agencies, and expands that strategy to cover 
China, Iran, and other malign actors.
  To guard against malign foreign actors seeking to gain access to 
sensitive information through DOD contractors, the conference report 
includes a provision that I sponsored to enhance requirements for DOD 
contractors and

[[Page S7067]]

subcontractors to disclose beneficial ownership information, including 
whether companies are subject to foreign ownership, control, or 
influence.
  The Intelligence authorization bill, which is part of the conference 
report, also includes key provisions to counter foreign malign 
influence that have been of particular interest to me.
  First, it authorizes establishing a Foreign Malign Influence Response 
Center, which would bring together all elements of the intelligence 
community and serve as a primary organization for analyzing and 
integrating intelligence on foreign malign influence to provide a 
common operating picture across the government.

  The Intelligence authorization bill also authorizes the Director of 
National Intelligence to facilitate the establishment of an 
independent, nonprofit, Social Media Data and Threat Analysis Center to 
bring tech companies and researchers together to analyze indicators of 
foreign adversary threat networks across social media platforms.
  Finally, the conference report authorizes funds for research on 
foreign malign influence trends and indicators, including on foreign 
weaponization of ``deepfakes''--that is, videos or other media that is 
digitally manipulated by foreign governments to spread disinformation.
  Turning to Ukraine, the conference report authorizes an increase in 
funding for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative to provide 
critical aid, including lethal assistance, to this strategic partner to 
defend itself against Russian aggression against its sovereignty and 
territorial integrity.
  With respect to Turkey, the conference report prohibits Turkey's 
participation in the F-35 aircraft program as long as it possesses the 
Russian S-400 air defense system. It expresses the sense of Congress 
that Turkey's purchase of the S-400 system triggers congressionally 
mandated sanctions and urges the administration to impose those 
sanctions, which are long overdue.
  As everyone is aware, this conference report does create a sixth 
service within the Air Force for a Space Force. Its mission will be to 
deter hostile actions in space against the United States and its 
allies.
  I would note that the organization created in this conference report 
is far more robust than was originally passed in the Senate bill. I 
believe this bill may be trying to do too much, too fast, and will 
require significant oversight. That being said, I do believe the 
attention we have paid to space and protecting our national security 
assets in space is vitally important. I will continue to work on this 
issue in the coming years.
  Finally, with respect to substantive provisions, I would like to 
touch on an issue I find very problematic. I am deeply disappointed 
that, despite my strong support, provisions intended to prohibit U.S. 
involvement in the civil war in Yemen, including arms transfers to the 
Saudi-led coalition, are not included in the conference report. The 
civil war in Yemen is the world's worst ongoing humanitarian crisis, 
and the administration should be playing a more active and constructive 
role in ending the conflict and achieving a sustainable peace.
  I strongly support a prohibition on offensive arms transfers and 
other offensive support for the Saudi-led coalition and will continue 
working to stop the bloodshed and suffering in Yemen.
  We must redouble our efforts in support of the Yemeni people and 
increase humanitarian assistance. Iran, al-Qaida, ISIS, and others 
continue to benefit from the chaos of this protracted conflict, and 
ending the war is in the long-term security interests of both the 
United States and Saudi Arabia.
  Stronger U.S. support for peace talks can and should set the 
conditions for Yemenis to negotiate a durable peace and for the 
international community to begin the difficult but critical work of 
restoring stability and basic services to the people of Yemen. These 
objectives will remain significant priorities going forward.
  Let me conclude by again thanking Senator Inhofe for his superb 
leadership and Chairman Smith for his superb leadership of the 
conference, which is a very challenging responsibility. They discharged 
it with great skill. I also thank Ranking Member Mac Thornberry, who 
was extraordinarily thoughtful and professional in his deportment, and 
all the conferees for their bipartisan support throughout the process. 
This process has been collegial and has been an example of a strong 
piece of legislation that addresses concerns of Members on both sides 
of the aisle.
  I would also like to thank the staffs of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee and the House Armed Services Committee for all their fine 
work on drafting a thoughtful and comprehensive bill. Their diligent 
work throughout the NDAA process has been integral in producing the 
strong bill before us today.
  Let me say this: They are not identified enough, in my view. The work 
they did and continue to do has been superb--absolutely superb. I want 
to personally thank them. Let me thank John Bonsell, Elizabeth King, 
Jen Stewart, and Paul Arcangeli for their help. They are the staff 
directors of the committees in both the House and the Senate.
  If my colleagues would bear with me, I want to recognize all of our 
staff members because they don't get the credit they deserve. Beginning 
alphabetically, Adam Barker, Stephanie Barna, Jody Bennett, Rick 
Berger, Augusta Binns-Berkey, Leah Brewer, John Bryant, Debbie 
Chiarello, Carolyn Chuhta, Jon Clark, Maggie Cooper, Allen Edwards, 
Jonathan Epstein, Jorie Feldman, Patty-Jane Geller, Tom Goffus, 
Creighton Greene, Ozge Guzelsu, Marta Hernandez, Gary Howard, Baher 
Iskander, Jackie Kerber, Gary Leeling, Greg Lilly, Katie Magnus, Kirk 
McConnell, Keri Lyn Michalke, Jackie Modesett, Bill Monahan, Mike 
Noblet, Sean O'Keefe, Tony Pankuch, Brad Patou, Jason Potter, John 
Quirk, John Riordan, Arun Seraphin, Katherine Sutton, Soleil Sykes, 
Arthur Tellis, Fiona Tomlin, Eric Trager, Dustin Walker, John Wason, 
Tyler Wilkinson, Bob Winkler, Gwyneth Woolwine, and Jennie Wright.

  Thank you.
  I strongly support this conference agreement and hope that it will 
receive the support of my colleagues in the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following Senators be permitted to conclude their remarks before the 
vote begins: Senator Jones, Senator Collins, Senator Thune, and Senator 
Inhofe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. JONES. Mr. President, I want to first thank Senator Inhofe and 
Senator Reed and their staff for their amazing work on this National 
Defense Authorization Act. What we are about to accomplish is truly 
remarkable, not only for America but for individuals and families.
  I am rising today as grateful and as humbled as I could ever imagine 
being in this Senate Chamber, but I am also just the opposite--I am 
excited like a kid at Christmas waiting to have the final passage of 
this because it means so much. We are at the finish line, about to run 
through the tape in a race, a marathon that so many folks thought we 
could never finish. I am talking about this momentous and historic 
National Defense Authorization Act upon which we are about to vote and 
pass in just a few moments.
  The NDAA includes so many of our collective priorities to bolster the 
defense of our Nation, to modernize our military, and to take care of 
our servicemembers and their families. But included very deep within 
this incredibly thick piece of legislation is a provision that has been 
repeatedly introduced over the past 18 years, but it has never gotten 
across that finish line. I am speaking about the Military Widow's Tax 
Elimination Act.
  For the past four decades, the military widow's tax has prevented 
surviving military spouses from receiving the full benefits they are 
owed by the U.S. Government. Legislation to repeal this unfair law has 
been repeatedly introduced in Congress for the last 18 years, but money 
and budgets and points of order have always won out over the commitment 
we have made to these families.

[[Page S7068]]

  When I introduced it with my friend and colleague Senator Collins 
earlier this year, we knew it was going to be an uphill battle. We knew 
that the fight had been going on for so long and that we faced a steep 
climb, but we took a great deal of strength and motivation from the 
impacted widows themselves who have fought and advocated for this bill 
for nearly two decades. They have been a regular presence on Capitol 
Hill, asking year after year for Members of Congress to lend an ear to 
their cause. I was heartbroken when one of them told me they felt like 
they were easy to brush off because they were ``just a bunch of little 
old ladies.''
  I was heartbroken when Cathy Milford said every time she came up here 
it was like digging up her husband and burying him all over again.
  After 18 years without success, yet all the while being told how 
supportive Members of Congress are for their service and sacrifice, 
time and time again, you could see how disheartening that might be when 
they would go home emptyhanded.
  So when I told them this was the year--Senator Collins and I had made 
it our mission that this was going to be the year we were finally going 
to get this done--there were more than a few of them who were 
skeptical, but they were, of course, always optimistic.
  We knew we had to fight harder than ever before if we were going to 
be successful. We had to make our case that this injustice could no 
longer stand. As we did, one by one, Senators and Members of the House 
joined this cause with us. By summertime, in this body, we had earned 
an unprecedented number of Senators' support for this bill.
  Today, as we are about to vote, there are over three-fourths of the 
U.S. Senate who have cosponsored this legislation. Think of that. In 
such a partisan time as we live in right now, in this moment, three-
fourths of the U.S. Senate has voiced their support.
  Because of the momentum we built, this is the year, this is the day, 
we will finally honor the commitment we made to these families who have 
given everything to our country. This is the year, this is the day, we 
will let our actions speak louder than words, the year we finally put 
our money where our mouth is when it comes to honoring our 
servicemembers and their families. This is the year, this is the day, 
we finally repeal the widow's tax once and for all.
  It is, to be candid, difficult to articulate what it means to me to 
be able to help bring this legislation across the finish line for these 
surviving spouses.
  Their strength, their devotion, and their grit have made this all 
possible. Their loved ones gave what Abraham Lincoln called ``the last 
full measure of devotion'' to our country, and the continued commitment 
to that devotion by their surviving spouses is a daily reminder of why 
I am here, why we are all here.
  In their own way, these widows have also fought to advance the ideals 
and values of the Nation we all love so much. Instead of becoming 
bitter or jaded when learning of this injustice, these incredible women 
worked to make things right. Year after year, they would gather in 
Washington to meet with Members of the House and the Senate to beg 
Congress to right this wrong, only to be told that as unfair as this 
may be, eliminating the widow's tax would just cost us too much. For 18 
years, they were told it could never get done, but they never ever gave 
up.
  It kind of reminds me of a movie that was one of my favorite movies 
years ago called ``Network,'' in which the late actor Peter Finch 
starred as a somewhat crazed newscaster who was so fed up with the 
state of affairs in this country that he implored all those watching to 
go to their windows and throw open the windows and just yell: ``I'm mad 
as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore,'' and they did.
  That is essentially what these widows did as well. Year after year, 
they screamed that they were not going to take it anymore, and they 
built momentum that led to this historic vote today.
  I am so glad this fight is finally coming to an end. I am going to 
miss their regular visits and their friendship. I truly hope they know 
how much it has meant to me and my staff as well. My staff has been all 
in. Everybody has been so dedicated and so passionate about getting 
this across the finish line.
  I am deeply grateful to Senators Inhofe and Reed, who have been 
critical to this effort to get this done. Without them, it would not 
have been possible. For their support, I am truly appreciative.
  More important, I am especially grateful to my partner in all of 
this, Senator Collins, whose deeply held commitment was vital to our 
success.
  Today we will celebrate the end to our four-decades-old fight. We 
will take stock in this great achievement together, but tomorrow we 
must turn our attention to the next big issue because there are so many 
others who need our help, our attention, and our courage to do the 
right thing.
  For now--for now we can celebrate because today those military 
spouses who had once proclaimed they were mad as hell and not going to 
take it are watching this proceeding with a more joyous feeling. These 
widows are watching in the quiet of their homes, perhaps in the 
Gallery, many of them grasping a photograph of their loved ones, their 
late husbands, but they all have tears in their eyes, saying to each 
other and to us in this body: Thank you because now I am happy as hell 
that I don't have to take it anymore.
  I assure my colleagues that right now their spouses, those who gave 
the ultimate sacrifice for this country, are watching from that 
heavenly perch above, standing at full attention, and saluting the 
Members of this Congress and saying: Thank you. Thank you for 
recognizing the ultimate sacrifice I made for this country. Thank you 
because you have demonstrated a commitment to me and my service, and 
with that final commitment from you, the commitment I made to my loved 
ones, the commitment to care for them even after I am gone, has finally 
been fulfilled, and I can truly rest in peace.
  To my colleagues in the Senate, by your vote today, you are doing so 
much more than modernizing our military providing for the Nation's 
defense. By your vote today, you are returning their salute--the salute 
to those brave servicemembers who gave their all in service to this 
country.
  Folks, this is a really, really big deal, and I salute all the 
Members of this body for their efforts.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am delighted to join my friend and 
colleague from Alabama, Senator Jones, to urge support for the final 
passage of the National Defense Authorization Act, which finally--
finally--contains repeal of what is commonly called the military 
widow's tax.
  I want to commend Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Reed for 
including this important provision in the bill and for their excellent 
job in crafting the legislation overall.
  This significant bill contains numerous provisions critical to our 
national security and important to the great State of Maine, but right 
now I want to join my colleague Senator Jones in celebrating and 
highlighting one long-fought-for provision, and that is the repeal of 
the Survivor Benefit Plan and Dependency and Indemnity Compensation 
offset, commonly referred to as the military widow's tax.
  Let me explain exactly what the problem is. Many military retirees 
purchase, with their own money, a form of insurance called the Survivor 
Benefit Plan. If they subsequently die of a military-connected illness, 
their surviving spouse qualifies for a dependency and indemnity 
compensation benefit from the VA.
  Unfortunately, these two programs are offset dollar for dollar for 
our military families. This makes no sense. The retirees are paying for 
this extra insurance with their own money.
  The NDAA will finally remedy this inequity, this burdensome 
unfairness, and it will permit as many as 67,000 surviving spouses, 
including more than 260 in Maine, to begin collecting the full survivor 
benefits they are entitled to once it is fully phased in.
  The average offset to the SBP amounts to more than $11,000 per year. 
That is a significant amount of money that a widow or widower needs to 
help support their families and themselves.
  I would like to again recommend and thank Senator Jones for his 
strong advocacy and unceasing leadership, as

[[Page S7069]]

well as the countless military spouses and veteran advocates, the 
veteran service organizations that helped push this effort over the 
finish line this year.
  This year, these dedicated advocates helped Senator Jones and I 
secure a record number of cosponsors to our bill to repeal the widow's 
tax--78 Senators and 383 House Members.
  As Senator Jones was mentioning, that is phenomenal and shows the 
strong bipartisan support to correct this unfairness.
  Often I am reminded by military commanders of the saying that you 
recruit the soldier, but you retain the family. We have an obligation 
to make sure we are taking care of our military families who have 
sacrificed so much.
  I urge all of our colleagues to support final passage of the NDAA and 
to finally put an end to the military widow's tax.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the vote we are talking about is to waive 
the budget point of order that was raised by Senator Enzi. If the 
budget point of order is not waived, the NDAA--which I believe is the 
most significant vote we pass every year; it has passed for 58 
consecutive years--will be referred back to committee. So that is 
really what is at stake here.
  The budget point of order on the NDAA is primarily caused by three 
provisions: first, repealing the widow's tax phased in over 3 years. We 
have been talking about that. That is part of this point of order; 
secondly, giving visas to Afghans who work closely with the U.S. 
military during the war; and, third, allowing military servicemembers 
to file claims for medical malpractice.
  Now, all three provisions have significant bipartisan support. The 
widow's tax, as was just stated, has 76 cosponsors in the Senate, 383 
in the House.
  A vote in this Chamber in late September to instruct conference on 
the widow's tax passed 94 to 0. You might keep that in mind. Anyone who 
talks now about opposing it actually voted for it back in September.
  Now, as I mentioned in my remarks last night, I started working to 
repeal the widow's tax after being inspired by one of my personal 
heroes, a young lady named Jane Horton.
  I can remember back in September of 2011, I was in a little town 
north of Tulsa, OK--Collinsville, OK--and I was up there talking to 
people, the normal type of thing we do, going around speaking with our 
constituents, and I recall that is when I first met Jane Horton. She 
lived in Collinsville.
  After I had visited for a while with the group, I commented that I am 
the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and I am going to 
be going to Afghanistan in this next week. She said that her husband, 
Chris Horton, was also right at that moment in Afghanistan. I made the 
statement: Well, let's find out where he is, and I did. I checked into 
it and arranged to go by to see him as I left for Afghanistan, but I 
didn't see him because on September 9, 2011, Chris Horton was killed in 
action.
  Now, after all of Jane's sacrifices in losing her husband in the line 
of duty, it seemed unimaginable to me that she should have to deal with 
the further pain of a dollar-for-dollar offset in her benefits as a 
Gold Star spouse. So we have worked with Jane and the other Gold Star 
spouses for a long time to figure out how we can do this in a 
responsible way. That hasn't been talked about so far, but we did it. 
So it has happened over a period of time.

  Similarly, supporting the Afghan partners who sacrificed so much to 
help us help their country has long been a bipartisan priority. 
Everyone involved in this conference, including the Department of 
Defense, recognized the importance of fixing the medical malpractice 
issues in a commonsense fashion.
  I understand my colleagues' concerns. We have worked hard to make 
each of these provisions fiscally responsible, and we will continue to 
do that.
  There is a document, which nobody reads anymore, called the 
Constitution. The Constitution says that our top priorities here should 
be defending America. That is what we are supposed to be doing. Each of 
these provisions enables us to better defend America and allows us to 
take up this bill and actually pass it for the President to sign.
  So I urge you to vote to allow this bill to move to final passage so 
that we can send this legislation to the President's desk, where he 
said he would sign it immediately, and he will. By doing so, it will 
send a clear message to our troops and adversaries that this body is 
serious about America's national security.


                        Vote on Motion to Waive

  Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, 
I move to waive all applicable sections of the act and applicable 
budget resolutions for the purpose of the conference report to 
accompany S. 1790, and I ask for the yeas and the nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  All postcloture time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
   Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
   Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from 
Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and 
the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.
   The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
   The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 82, nays 12, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 399 Leg.]

                                YEAS--82

      Alexander
      Baldwin
      Barrasso
      Bennet
      Blackburn
      Blumenthal
      Blunt
      Boozman
      Brown
      Burr
      Cantwell
      Capito
      Cardin
      Carper
      Casey
      Collins
      Coons
      Cornyn
      Cortez Masto
      Cotton
      Cramer
      Crapo
      Cruz
      Daines
      Duckworth
      Durbin
      Ernst
      Feinstein
      Fischer
      Gardner
      Graham
      Grassley
      Hassan
      Hawley
      Heinrich
      Hirono
      Hoeven
      Hyde-Smith
      Inhofe
      Jones
      Kaine
      King
      Lankford
      Leahy
      Manchin
      McConnell
      McSally
      Menendez
      Merkley
      Moran
      Murkowski
      Murphy
      Murray
      Perdue
      Peters
      Portman
      Reed
      Risch
      Roberts
      Rosen
      Rounds
      Rubio
      Sasse
      Schatz
      Schumer
      Scott (FL)
      Scott (SC)
      Shaheen
      Shelby
      Sinema
      Smith
      Stabenow
      Sullivan
      Tester
      Thune
      Tillis
      Udall
      Van Hollen
      Warner
      Whitehouse
      Wicker
      Young

                                NAYS--12

      Braun
      Cassidy
      Enzi
      Gillibrand
      Johnson
      Kennedy
      Lee
      Markey
      Paul
      Romney
      Toomey
      Wyden

                              NOT VOTING--6

      Booker
      Harris
      Isakson
      Klobuchar
      Sanders
      Warren
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 82, the nays are 
12.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to and the point of order falls.


                       Vote on Conference Report

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on adoption of the conference 
report.
  Mr. DAINES. 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 senior assistant clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), 
the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Minnesota 
(Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 86, nays 8, as follows:

[[Page S7070]]

  


                      [Rollcall Vote No. 400 Leg.]

                                YEAS--86

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Menendez
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--8

     Braun
     Enzi
     Gillibrand
     Lee
     Markey
     Merkley
     Paul
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Booker
     Harris
     Isakson
     Klobuchar
     Sanders
     Warren
  The conference report was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

                          ____________________