[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 201 (Thursday, November 18, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8430-S8436]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022--MOTION TO 
                           PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume legislative 
session.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.


                     Confirmation of Julianne Smith

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I would also like to speak to Julie 
Smith and her qualifications to be Ambassador to NATO.
  Julie is, really, very well qualified to represent the United States 
within our biggest and most significant security alliance. Her 25-year 
career has focused on transatlantic relations and security. She has 
served the country as Deputy National Security Advisor and Acting 
National Security Advisor to then-Vice President Biden.
  In 2012, she was awarded the Office of the Secretary of Defense's 
Medal for Exceptional Public Service. She has worked at some of the 
country's most esteemed think tanks that address European issues.
  As the U.S. confronts challenges around the world, we need to convey 
our firm commitment to our allies and our alliances. For this reason, 
it is absolutely critical that we put Julie Smith in place as 
Ambassador to NATO as soon as possible.
  I am really very pleased that those who had a hold on her nomination 
have finally lifted those holds. It is unfortunate that it has taken so 
long because, as we look at what is happening in Eastern Europe in 
particular, and as we look at the migrants who are being used by 
Belarus--and I assume that Vladimir Putin is behind this, as well, to 
send those migrants to the Polish border as a way to distract from what 
is happening in Eastern Europe--clearly, the more equipped NATO is to 
help deal with those challenges, the better.
  If we are going to participate with NATO, we need to have an 
Ambassador on the ground. It should have happened several months ago, 
when she was nominated. So I am very pleased that she is going to be 
able to assume her ambassadorship very soon. As co-chair of the Senate 
NATO Observer Group, I look forward to working with her in her new 
role.
  But this should serve as a wake-up call to those people in this 
Chamber who continue to have holds on critical nominees who are 
important to this country's national security. As I talk to U.S. 
allies, it is clear that the delay in sending Ambassadors to posts 
around the world is having a real impact on our relations with our 
partners; and in the absence of U.S. representation, they are 
questioning our commitment to our bilateral relationships.
  Now, I would like to think that my colleagues who have put these 
holds on our nominees aren't doing it in an effort to undermine 
America's security and to undermine this administration in protecting 
the United States, but, clearly, that is the impact of what they are 
doing.
  I have heard from a lot of my colleagues over the last months about 
U.S. standing in the world after our withdrawal from Afghanistan. Yet, 
as they are blocking administration nominees who would work with our 
allies, who would engage in our shared priorities and values, who would 
listen to concerns, and who could work together, they are just 
exacerbating any issues that may exist.
  I don't know why they are doing this, but, right now, there are 58 
other State Department nominees who are awaiting confirmation on the 
floor. Every day that passes that we have no Ambassadors in place in 
countries around the world, our national security is compromised, and I 
have got a very close-to-home example.
  Earlier today, I met with Diane Foley, the mother of James Foley, who 
was the first American killed by ISIS, and she has done yeoman's work 
with her foundation to try to help the families of hostages who are 
being held in countries around the world. She was talking about what we 
could do to help those families and to do everything to try and help 
them get their loved ones back--to free the hostages who are being 
wrongly held around the world.
  Well, one of the things we talked about is the fact that, in many of 
those countries, we don't have Ambassadors because we have holds on 
those folks who are so important to help those families and to help 
address American interests in those countries. So what our colleagues 
are doing by holding up these nominees is undermining the national 
security of the United States. By grinding to a halt our State 
Department nominees, a small group of my Republican colleagues has 
allowed partisan brinkmanship to pervade a critical aspect of our 
national security.
  You know, there was a very important principle established after 
World War II about partisan politics ending at the water's edge. It is 
unfortunate that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not 
continuing to support that principle.
  We are stronger and safer when our diplomatic corps--those 
individuals who support Americans and U.S. foreign policy around the 
world--are supported by capable, Senate-vetted, and Senate-confirmed 
Ambassadors.

[[Page S8431]]

  So I hope we will see in the coming weeks a willingness of those few 
people--it is only two or three people on the other side of the aisle 
who have held people up--to release those holds in the best interests 
of America and of our security.
  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.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   National Defense Authorization Act

  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the 
National Defense Authorization Act.
  As written, this legislation authorizes $778 billion in defense 
spending just for next year alone. That is more money than we spent on 
defense during the Korean or Vietnam wars. It is even more money than 
we spent at the height of the extraordinary Reagan defense buildup in 
the 1980s.
  Now Congress is set to pass this bill with virtually no debate and 
with virtually no discussion about how much money we are spending. 
Congress keeps the spigot of cash wide open so long as it is for 
defense. And please note that not one single dollar of this huge 
defense budget will be offset either with new taxes or with new 
spending cuts someplace else.
  Meanwhile, do you know how much money the President's Build Back 
Better plan will cost, on average, each year if Congress passes it? 
$175 billion. That is about one-fifth the size of this Defense bill. 
And unlike this Defense bill, every single dollar of the President's 
plan will be offset with new revenue or savings.
  But here is the thing: When we want to invest $175 billion a year on 
childcare and paid family leave and expanding access to healthcare and 
fighting the climate crisis, and when we are going to offset every 
single dollar for those new expenses, everybody suddenly becomes so 
very concerned about spending. When we want to make investments that 
directly benefit people across this country, we are told ``that costs 
too much'' or ``that is socialism.'' But when we spend nearly five 
times that amount of money in the Defense bill, it is just a shrug of 
the shoulders. Look around this Chamber. It is empty.
  And let's be clear where most of this defense money is going. It is 
largely going to the defense industry. The Pentagon will take this 
money and give approximately $400 billion to contractors. And nearly 40 
percent of that will go to a handful of giant contractors.
  This is a huge amount of money in an ordinary year, but 2 years into 
a global pandemic that has killed 765,000 Americans, it is 
irresponsible to spend this much money on stuff that isn't saving 
Americans from what is actually killing them. America's spending 
priorities are completely misaligned, and the threats Americans 
actually are facing, the things that are quite literally endangering 
their lives--like COVID-19 and the climate crisis--don't get this kind 
of attention.
  Let me be clear. We can spend far less money on defense and still 
protect Americans and American interests. And you don't have to take my 
word for it. The Congressional Budget Office recently published a 
report outlining three different avenues for cutting $1 trillion in 
defense spending over the next decade. None of the three proposals were 
even close to radical. And, by the way, none of them achieved any 
savings from nuclear modernization, contract spending, and closing 
bases.
  And before somebody cranks up the outrage machine, let me say I do 
not believe that we should spend nothing on defense. There are real 
threats to our Nation and real interests that we must defend. There are 
some situations that may require military solutions. But this Defense 
bill goes far beyond that threshold. This bill continues to feed into 
the wrongheaded idea that America's strength can only be measured by 
our military domination.
  This bill is another example of Congress granting the Pentagon 
virtually unlimited resources while, at the exact same moment, pinching 
pennies on things that will make the American economy work for our 
children and for our seniors, for workers and students and retirees, 
for everyone who isn't part of a tiny little slice at the top.
  These misplaced priorities chip away at the strength of our Nation, 
and, ironically, they undermine the foundation upon which our military 
is built. If we don't come to recognize this soon, then all this money 
will have been wasted, and the world's most powerful military will rest 
on a foundation of sand.
  There are important and valuable provisions in this Defense bill. 
There are even places where we should spend more money, like on cyber 
defense, but it is long past time for us to rationalize the Pentagon's 
budget and align it with the threats we actually face. And this Defense 
bill, like so many before it, fails miserably to do that. For that 
reason, I will vote against it.
  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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Department of Defense Audit

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on November 15, the Pentagon announced 
that it completed its fourth consecutive annual audit and received a 
fourth consecutive failing opinion.
  This is what the Pentagon believes: If it somehow merely just 
conducts an audit, then somehow conducting that audit is a success 
despite the fact that it has been a requirement under the law for the 
last 30 years for Agencies--and that means all government Agencies--to 
conduct and pass an annual audit. The Department of Defense is about 
the only one that doesn't meet the requirements of the law.
  The Department points to other signs of progress, such as that they 
were able to downgrade one material weakness from a previous audit and 
the closure of some 450 adverse findings. That, somehow, is progress. 
It is not progress--at least, it doesn't meet the demands of the law. 
However, the fact remains that the Department of Defense is unable to 
accurately account for billions of taxpayer dollars it spends each 
year.
  Funding for the Department of Defense is crucial to our national 
security. Men and women who volunteer to wear the uniform and, hence, 
defend our country--these people deserve to be well paid and well 
equipped.
  In light of the rising threats around the globe, it is more crucial 
than ever that not one dollar is lost to fraud, waste, and abuse. A 
clean audit, which the Defense Department has never had, is the key to 
whether Department of Defense money is spent responsibly.
  A key underlying problem to the continued failed audits is the 
financial management systems used by the various military Departments. 
The Department of Defense uses hundreds of different financial systems 
that are outdated and are unable to communicate with each other. They 
cannot generate reliable transaction data and are not auditable.
  There are inadequate internal controls in financial management 
systems, presenting an environment that is ripe for waste and fraud. 
Without internal controls at the transaction level, military leaders 
can never know how much things cost.
  I have tried to work with leaders in the Department on this subject 
for years, but time and again, I have been disappointed.
  The Defense Department's inability or its unwillingness to make 
necessary and overdue changes should be unacceptable to any Senator.
  I filed an amendment to the bill before the Senate this year to 
address the root cause of the Pentagon's failed audits. The underlying 
bill provides for an independent Commission tasked with examining the 
budgeting and planning processes at the Pentagon. My amendment will 
require that very same Commission to also make recommendations on 
bringing financial management systems up to snuff.
  The Department of Defense will never be able to get a clean audit 
opinion while these systems remain unfixed, and the Department of 
Defense has demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to deploy an 
accounting

[[Page S8432]]

system capable of capturing payment transactions and generating 
reliable data. If you can't follow the money, you will never be able to 
get a clean audit.
  I am glad that my amendment has been included in the substitute 
amendment of the Defense bill before the U.S. Senate now, and I urge my 
colleagues to support this effort through to final passage to finally 
make real progress towards getting to a clean audit opinion. Fiscal 
accountability and military readiness are not mutually exclusive. It is 
not an either-or scenario. Earning a clean bill of fiscal health will 
strengthen military readiness and boost support for necessary increases 
to defense spending in Congress, and it would get the backing of the 
American people to a greater extent than it does today.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  (Whereupon, Mr. KAINE assumed the chair.)
  (Whereupon, Mr. KELLY assumed the chair.)
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                       Unanimous Consent Requests

  Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back all 
remaining time on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 144, H.R. 4350, 
the National Defense Authorization Act; that if the motion to proceed 
is agreed to, the Reed-Inhofe substitute amendment No. 3867, as 
modified with the changes at the desk, be called up and reported by 
number; further, that it be in order to call up the following 
amendments to the Reed-Inhofe substitute amendment No. 3867, as 
modified, in the order listed: 1, Reed No. 4775; 2, Hoeven No. 4482; 3, 
Sanders No. 4654; 4, Lee No. 4793; 5, Paul No. 4395; 6, Hawley No. 
4140; 7, Peters-Portman No. 4799; 8, Scott of Florida, No. 4813 side-
by-side to 4799; 9, Durbin-Lee No. 3939; 10, Cardin No. 3980; 11, 
Lujan-Crapo No. 4260; 12, King-Sasse No. 4784; 13, Cruz No. 4656; 14, 
Kaine No. 4133; 15, Hassan No. 4255; 16, Menendez No. 4786; 17, 
Marshall No. 4093; 18, Kennedy No. 4660; 19, Sanders No. 4722; 20, 
Portman No. 4540; that with the exception of the Reed amendment No. 
4775, the Senate vote at 9:30 p.m. today in relation to any first-
degree amendment offered in the order listed above, with 60 affirmative 
votes required for adoption of amendments in this agreement, and 2 
minutes of debate, equally divided in the usual form, prior to each 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. Reserving the right to object, I--what is missing from 
this list is the Uighur Forced Labor Prevention Act. In a moment, you 
are going to hear that it has this procedural problem--blue slips. For 
anyone who is not familiar with the lingo around here, that means that 
it is going to generate revenue, and therefore it has to originate in 
the House. That is what you are going to hear in a moment.
  Here is what is so interesting about it. About, I don't know, 4, 5, 6 
weeks ago, that very bill passed by unanimous consent in this very 
Senate.
  This bill doesn't have a blue slip problem. It has a bunch of 
corporations who are making stuff in Xinjiang Province problem. That is 
what the problem is here. So everyone is aware--everyone here is aware, 
I hope. In the Xinjiang Province of China, Uighur Muslims are put into 
forced labor camps where they work as slaves--something that this 
administration and the previous one termed as ``genocide.''
  They work as slaves making products, and there are American companies 
that are sourcing goods that end up on the shelves in this country. It 
is, in fact, almost certain that in this very Chamber there is some 
product that was manufactured by slave labor in China. We passed that 
bill in the Senate by unanimous consent. Not a single person objected 
to it. There was no blue slip problem then. Now all of a sudden there 
is.
  This is because there is a bunch--that is why they are killing it in 
the House. A bunch of these corporations, lobbying against it, doing 
everything possible, and they know if it gets in this bill it is going 
to become law.
  So I object, and I ask that the request be modified to include my 
amendment No. 4330.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Mr. REED. I object to the modification, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard to the modification.
  Is there objection to the original request?
  Mr. RUBIO. I object.
  Mr. REED. Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. I renew my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DAINES. Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Montana.
  Mr. DAINES. Madam President, reserving the right to object, border 
security is national security. That is why I rise today to speak on my 
amendment No. 4236, to block President Biden's outrageous taxpayer-
funded handouts to illegal immigrants who broke the law and entered our 
country illegally.
  At a time when American families are struggling because of 
Bidenflation, when families are paying more for everything from gas to 
groceries, to heating their homes, the President wants to give up to 
hundreds of millions of your taxpayer dollars to illegal immigrants as 
a reward for breaking the law.
  Don't forget, we still have a crisis on our southern border, and we 
should be doing all that we can to secure our southern border, not 
incentivize illegal immigration.
  These taxpayer-funded handouts to illegal immigrants are outrageous, 
and I would urge my colleagues to allow a vote on my commonsense 
amendment.
  Therefore, I ask unanimous consent to modify the request to include 
my amendment No. 4236.
  Mr. REED. Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Mr. REED. I object to the modification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Is there objection to the original request?
  Mr. DAINES. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I renew my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I would 
just like to bring to my colleagues' attention to the front page of the 
Wall Street Journal, the lead story, the headline above the fold today, 
``Annual Drug Overdose Deaths Top 100,000, Setting Record.'' For the 12 
months ending in April, alltime record number of fatalities--a big 
majority of them opioids, mostly synthetic opioids, driven primarily by 
fentanyl. Unbelievable. Think of 100,000 new families in the last 12 
months that will have an empty seat at the Thanksgiving Day dinner next 
Thursday.
  Pennsylvania has been hit as hard as any State, but every one of our 
States has been hit hard by this.
  So why am I objecting to this?
  Because I have an amendment that at least on the margins would help. 
It is simple, and it is common sense. It adds fentanyl to the majors 
list. The majors list is the list that includes the countries that the 
President has to identify as the largest producers of illicit fentanyl. 
That is China. Let's be clear. But once these countries--any country--
is identified as a big producer of fentanyl, my bill would require 
those countries to prosecute drug traffickers and schedule fentanyl as 
a class, and if they do not, then they are not doing all they could and 
should be doing to keep fentanyl off our streets; in which case, under 
my amendment, the President would be authorized to withhold certain 
categories of foreign aid.
  This bill is so noncontroversial and common sense, it has actually 
already passed this body just last year.

[[Page S8433]]

  It is bipartisan. Senator Maggie Hassan from New Hampshire, a 
Democrat, is my partner on the underlying bill.
  And I would point out to my colleagues, I don't have any objection to 
anyone getting an amendment vote. I am not holding up anybody's votes, 
as long as we get this chance to reduce the flow of fentanyl coming 
into America.
  So I ask to modify the request to include my amendment No. 3925.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I object to the modification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is objection. Objection is heard.
  Is there objection to the original request?
  Mr. TOOMEY. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I renew my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. RISCH. Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. RISCH. Madam President, I am reserving the right to object.
  I want to speak today on behalf of my amendment, Risch No. 4794, 
which is not included on that list, which I have introduced with 
cosponsors Senators Portman, Cruz, Barrasso, Johnson, Cotton, Daines, 
and Wicker.
  This amendment is the Senate companion to bipartisan language that 
already is included in the House-passed NDAA which would sanction Nord 
Stream 2, Putin's premier energy weapon against Ukraine and Europe.
  The timing could not be more important. Ukraine stands on the brink 
of an invasion, and Europe is in the throes of an energy crisis created 
by Russia.
  There is a reason Ukraine's President Zelensky tweeted an urgent 
request last week regarding this amendment, which said:

       [A]ll friends of Ukraine and Europe in the US Senate 
     [should] back this amendment.

  We are now seeing the consequences of the administration's decision 
to waive mandatory PEESA sanctions and refusal to impose CAATSA 
sanctions.
  Russia has deliberately cut gas transmission to Europe through 
Ukraine and is using high energy prices to pressure the EU into 
approving Nord Stream 2 as quickly as possible. Putin has publicly 
stated as such.
  Meanwhile, Russian forces have built up along the border of Ukraine 
in preparation for what could be a full-scale invasion, just as they 
did to the Crimea.
  Remember, Nord Stream 2 is designed to replace Ukraine's gas transit 
system, meaning Russia no longer has to worry about destroying its own 
infrastructure in the event of full-scale war.
  We cannot allow Putin's blackmail to succeed. Nord Stream 2 has 
always been a bipartisan issue here in the Senate, and it should 
continue to be. Not a single Member of Congress supports the completion 
of this pipeline. I would like to think a similar number of us don't 
think we should ignore our friends in Europe, particularly Central and 
Eastern Europe, who stand to lose the most from Nord Stream 2.
  Our amendment would impose mandatory sanctions against Nord Stream 2 
AG, the company responsible for the project, as well as the companies 
involved in testing and certifying the pipeline before it can become 
operational.
  We do provide the administration with a pathway to lifting these 
targeted sanctions, pending, of course, congressional review. This 
pathway is the exact same process for congressional input that 98 
Senators voted for in CAATSA just a few years ago.
  Nord Stream 2 is not set to become operational for months so there is 
still time to stop it, but we need to act quickly.
  I urge my colleagues to join our distinguished colleagues in the 
House of Representatives on this important endeavor and to vote yes on 
this amendment.
  Therefore, I ask unanimous consent to modify the request of the 
distinguished Senator Reed and include my amendment No. 4794.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I object to the modification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection to the modification is heard.
  Is there objection to the original request?
  Mr. RISCH. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I renew my original request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Reserving the right to object, 2 years ago, I authored 
bipartisan legislation sanctioning any company that participated in 
building Nord Stream 2. That legislation passed Congress 
overwhelmingly, and Democrats and Republicans overwhelmingly supported 
it. That was passed on the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization 
Act.
  A year ago, I authored a second set of bipartisan sanctions on Nord 
Stream 2. That second set of bipartisan sanctions again passed 
overwhelmingly with the support of Democrats and Republicans in this 
Chamber. That second set of bipartisan sanctions likewise passed on the 
National Defense Authorization Act.
  Today, the Democrats are objecting to passing sanctions on Nord 
Stream 2.
  What has changed?
  Two things have changed. No. 1, today Joe Biden is President and not 
Donald Trump. And the Democrats were more than willing to stand up to 
Russia when Donald Trump was President, but when Joe Biden is 
President, suddenly it is untenable for Democrats to stand up to 
Russia.
  But, secondly, it is even worse because what has also changed is that 
Joe Biden has utterly and completely capitulated to Vladimir Putin. He 
has waived the mandatory sanctions that this body passed. He has given 
a multibillion-dollar generational gift to Putin. This strengthens 
Russia. Decades from now, successor dictators in Russia will reap 
billions of dollars that they will use for military aggression against 
Europe, against America, and it will be because Joe Biden utterly and 
completely capitulated.

  So why are Senate Democrats objecting to a vote on Nord Stream 2?
  Because they cannot defend Joe Biden's surrender to Putin on the 
merits. They don't want to vote on it because it would be politically 
inconvenient for this White House that has undermined the national 
security of the United States and has weakened our allies. Right now, 
energy prices are skyrocketing in Europe because Joe Biden surrendered 
to Vladimir Putin.
  We have twice passed Nord Stream 2 sanctions on the NDAA. After 
Biden's surrender to Putin, we should do so again. My Democratic 
friends who have given speech after speech after speech against Nord 
Stream 2, against Russia, should demonstrate they mean what they say 
and that they are not simply interested in being political protectors 
for a Democratic President.
  Accordingly--and I would note, by the way, in response to every 
amendment that has been called up, the Democrats have not seen fit to 
provide even a word of substantive argument in response. So I am going 
to predict you are not going to hear the President, Joe Biden, 
surrender to Russia. You are not going to hear any defense of Nord 
Stream 2. You haven't heard any substantive defense. You are going to 
hear two words--``I object''--because the Democrats are afraid of 
taking this vote.
  I believe we are elected here to represent our constituents and the 
interests of the United States, and we should have the courage to do 
so. Therefore, I ask to modify the request to include amendment No. 
4794.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection to the modification is heard.
  Is there objection to the original request?
  Mr. CRUZ. My prediction was accurate, and I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I renew my original request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The junior Senator from Alaska.

[[Page S8434]]

  

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, in reserving the right to object, I am 
requesting a vote on my amendment No. 4329.
  I am very disappointed that my Democratic colleagues will refuse to 
vote on this very simple, very important, very constitutionally correct 
amendment that also dramatically could impact military readiness, which 
is why it is so important to discuss it here as we are debating the 
NDAA.
  My amendment is simple. It prohibits the Department of Defense from 
enforcing President Biden's vaccine mandate on contractors and 
subcontractors. That is it.
  Why is this important?
  Well, look, we all want to put the vaccine behind us. There is no 
doubt about that. We have all been vaccinated here. I think most of us 
have encouraged our constituents, in consultation with their 
physicians, to do the same.
  First and foremost, as to this vaccine mandate, it is becoming 
increasingly clear it is not constitutionally based, and it is not 
based in statute, and I think the American people are seeing that on a 
daily basis. So it is an issue of not just the constitutional authority 
of the President, but it is an issue of the principle that got us all 
through the pandemic last year.
  If you will remember, one of the most important principles that we 
had as we were working on COVID relief--whether in the CARES Act or 
other aspects of legislation that we had with regard to COVID relief 
for our citizens--was this: If you got relief, whether you were a small 
business, from the PPP, or were an airline or a defense contractor, the 
law said you had to keep your employees--that you had to keep them 
together--employers and employees together. That was the principle that 
all of us--Democrats and Republicans and the Trump administration--
agreed on during the pandemic, and it worked. Many of these workers 
were on the front lines, helping us get through the pandemic.
  This President, with his mandate, has taken a sledgehammer to that 
principle. Not only are we now saying employers and employees stick 
together; he is saying to employers: If you don't listen to the 
President, employers in America, you have to fire your employees.
  Think about that. That is exactly the opposite of what we all agreed 
on last year as we were trying to get this Nation through the pandemic. 
So it is fairness. It is the principle that matters.
  And here is the final thing--and I think we are going to see this. It 
is a readiness issue for our military.
  I have been talking to the White House. I am trying to get them to 
rescind this mandate. They have consistently said: Well, it is only 
going to impact about 1 percent of the workforce. We can't afford 
anybody getting fired from their job, but they think it is about 1 
percent.
  I was home in Alaska last weekend. This could impact contractors, and 
10, 15, 20 percent of their workforce might not be working--defense 
contractors--hurting readiness.
  Again, during the pandemic, we were asking these Americans to show up 
at work and make sure our defense industries were strong, and now the 
President is telling these same contractors: Go fire your employees--
oh, by the way, over the holidays.
  So I think this is a very simple, reasonable amendment that will help 
readiness. Therefore, I ask to modify the request to include my 
amendment No. 4329.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I object to the modification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection to the modification is heard.
  Is there objection to the original request?
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I renew my original request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, in reserving the right to object, this 
is an astounding thing. This is a conversation that has happened today 
about amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act.
  Now, I haven't been here very long, but, typically, an NDAA takes 
about 2 weeks on the floor to be able to process, and there is a lot of 
conversation about different amendments. There are managers' packages; 
there are big groupings of packages that come together that are 
noncontroversial; and there will be a series of votes that are side by 
side with other votes. It has already been set up for 20 votes. That is 
terrific. That is a great start.
  Then there is a request for some other things that are pretty 
typical, actually. There have been requests just in the last couple of 
minutes on military contractors and the vaccine mandate that will 
certainly affect our military readiness. That is certainly defense 
related.
  There is human trafficking in China and whether products are coming 
through. That is pretty straightforward. In fact, that passed 
unanimously through this body. That doesn't seem that controversial to 
be able to be in here.
  There are conversations about fentanyl and the origin of fentanyl, 
where that is coming from. That shouldn't be controversial to try to 
protect the country, but, suddenly, that amendment has been blocked.
  Nord Stream 2--Ukraine and Russia--has not been a controversial issue 
for us. This body has laid down sanctions multiple times on the NDAA on 
this exact issue, and now it is being blocked. You can't even debate 
it.
  Myself and Senator Daines both brought up things tonight dealing with 
border security, which is certainly national security: 1.7 million 
people we know of have illegally crossed our southwest border this 
year. It is the highest number of illegal crossings in the history of 
our country--1.7 million. But, on January 20 of this year, President 
Biden stopped construction on the border wall--in many places, 
literally where they only had to hang the gates and install the 
electronic infrastructure there. That was all that was left, but it 
stopped.
  Why is this connected to national security?
  Well, certainly, border security is national security. Also, part of 
this funding did come out of defense funding. It is being done by the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in many places.
  On top of that, this year, so far--just so far this year--we have 
paid contractors $2 billion not to build the wall. These were contracts 
that had already been let out to do the construction. We are continuing 
to pay about $3 million a day to contractors not to complete the wall 
in sections, by the way, that career individuals had selected--that 
section and that design--and then had to prove that that was the right 
place and the right design to both Republican and Democrats in this 
body, which they did. Now we are wasting $2 billion to not do national 
security.
  My amendment is very straightforward. We take the contracts that are 
already out there, and we complete those sections of the wall that have 
been approved by career individuals. Let's complete those sections and 
not just throw the money away and waste two billion of American 
taxpayer dollars, but actually use it for national security.
  So, in saying that, I ask that the request be modified to include my 
amendment No. 4100.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I object to the modification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection to the modification is heard.
  Is there objection to the original request?
  Mr. LANKFORD. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I renew my original request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. RISCH. Madam President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I believe I have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the floor.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, we began this process for the National 
Defense Authorization Act months ago. In

[[Page S8435]]

July, in working closely with the ranking member and all of my 
colleagues on the committee, we passed a bipartisan National Defense 
Act which was focused on the fundamental rationale for our National 
Defense Act: the men and women of the Armed Forces; the equipment that 
they need; the new technology, which is absolutely necessary as we go 
forward; the family lives of these men and women and their development; 
along with the weapons that they will use.
  This has been the focal point. As a result, we produced a committee 
report with a bipartisan majority of 23 to 3.
  We continued this bipartisan approach as we came into the floor 
debate. We have already included in the substitute amendment, which 
will be offered, approximately 60 amendments, on a bipartisan basis, 
that cover a range of topics which have been agreed to by both sides. 
Again, everything we have done to this point has been on a bipartisan 
basis.
  Indeed, this unanimous consent that I have proposed is bipartisan. It 
incorporates amendments from both my Republican colleagues and my 
Democrat colleagues. It does so, as we must, in a way that accommodates 
as many as we can, but we cannot and have never been able to guarantee 
that every amendment offered could be incorporated into the bill.
  So what we have here is, in a way, a crossroads. We have tried since 
the very inception to produce a bipartisan bill and a bipartisan floor 
action and a bipartisan final vote on the National Defense Act in the 
U.S. Senate.
  We have to get there because--again, I can hear my colleagues talk 
about Nord Stream, and that is very interesting and a very important 
issue; I can hear them talk about border security; I can hear them talk 
about forced labor in China; I can hear them talk about illegal 
immigrants.
  Ultimately, this is about the men and women who wear the uniform of 
the United States, and we can't leave them behind. The proposals might 
be meritorious, but we have to move forward and give those men and 
women the tools they need to defend the Nation.
  Again, I can't emphasize enough how, in working together with my 
colleagues and ranking member, we have tried at every juncture to be 
inclusive, to be bipartisan, to have recognized as many of the issues 
as we could. And we have to do that in the context, frankly, of the 
fact, in the Senate, as has been demonstrated tonight, one person can 
stand up and say: No, I didn't get what I want, and no one is going to 
get anything.
  I think we have done a very good job, frankly--and I might not be 
objective--in producing a national defense act that, at this juncture 
and with these additional amendments, would be more than worthy for 
final consideration by the Senate.
  But what is, again, somewhat disconcerting to me is that, by analogy, 
you can say everything is national defense. But the people who 
ultimately suffer, if we cannot get to passage and then deliberation 
with the House and then a final bill sent to the White House--it is not 
only that these problems that we have tried to address be unaddressed, 
but we will send a very powerful message to the men and women in the 
Armed Forces: We don't have your back. We are too busy squabbling 
amongst ourselves about issues of the border, Nord Stream, and other 
issues.
  So I would hope that we could move forward. The regret is that at 
this juncture, we are abandoning approximately 20 amendments on a 
bipartisan basis that would have addressed many of the concerns of my 
colleagues in the Senate. Some are directly related to national defense 
and some are not, but they were agreed to by both sides, and they would 
be added to this legislation.
  But at this juncture, our responsibility is--and it cannot be 
avoided--moving forward, of passing our defense bill, and then working 
with the House to send up to the President of the United States a bill 
worthy of the sacrifice and service of those who wear the uniform of 
the United States.
  Mr. INHOFE. Would the Senator yield?
  Mr. REED. With that, I would yield to the ranking member.
  Mr. INHOFE. Let me thank my partner there for all the hard work that 
we have done together.
  Not many people understand the process that we go through every year. 
It is an exhaustive process to get just to where we are today.
  First of all, I would say that, out of all the amendments that were 
discussed, I support all of them. We didn't get a chance to really see 
who did and who didn't support them, but I support them all.
  When we start one of these processes each year--we do this every 
year--the first thing we do is that we send a notice out. We send a 
notice out to each Member and ask each Member: What types of things are 
you interested in?
  And we send this out to all--to each Member of the House and the 
Senate, and they send their notices in as to what they want, when they 
want it, and how they want it. Then we put them and marry them in with 
other Democrats and Republicans who want the same thing and try to get 
these lists shaved down a little bit. And we have been successful in 
doing it. Right now, there are 60 cleared amendments. That is 60. That 
is about the same number we had last year and the same number we had 
before.
  I was disappointed that we had to waste a lot of time. My fellow 
Senator from Oklahoma, James Lankford, made the comment that we should 
have been on this bill for 2 weeks or longer. I agree; we should have. 
We couldn't do it. We didn't have it.
  I have to say that the leader--the Democratic leader--didn't allow 
this to come up so that we could do this. We didn't have a choice. As 
Republicans, we didn't have a choice, and we were united in wanting to 
get started earlier. As a result of that, a lot of Democrats and 
Republicans have lost their opportunity to get heard and to have 
amendments considered.
  The system is good. It is one that has worked for a long time. This 
is going to work. When we stop to think about the number of hours that 
are spent wading through all of these amendments, this does take place.
  I would compliment our chairman of the committee. We have worked very 
well together. We have gotten to this point. We will have to get this 
thing finished, and we will. But, nonetheless, we have an exhaustive 
policy that we have considered year after year after year. That is 
where we are today.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. REED. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, Democrats have been working in good 
faith for several days--actually, for several months, really--to pass 
this defense legislation.
  The bill before us was produced through a bipartisan committee 
process and included the input of at least three-fifths of Senators 
from both sides of the aisle. It is unfortunate that we cannot move 
forward tonight.
  Yesterday, we agreed to delay the initial cloture vote after the 
Armed Services Committee's ranking member requested more time to work 
on a managers' package to include more input from Members. The 
managers' package now include 57--57--amendments; 27 from Republicans, 
27 from Democrats, and 3 bipartisan amendments.
  Further, we just proposed votes on 18 amendments, 3 of which are 
bipartisan and 8 of which are Republican-led amendments. We could start 
voting on them tonight, but unfortunately, the other side won't agree--
or some on the other side won't agree.
  Democrats have demonstrated all year that we are more than willing to 
work in good faith on amendments here on the floor. This year, more 
amendments have received rollcall votes than during any of the past 4 
years. Members on both sides want to get this done. So these delays are 
unfortunate. There is no good reason to keep delaying. We should move 
the process forward.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S8436]]

  

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________