[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.
____________________