[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 124 (Wednesday, July 19, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3132-S3144]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. WICKER. What is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. S. 2226.
S. 2226
Mr. WICKER. Madam President, let me say that in just a few moments,
we will begin voting on amendments that are subject to unanimous
consent requests, and we hope to do five votes today and additional
votes tomorrow and following so that we can get this National Defense
Authorization Bill enacted and get to conference.
Let me say that this year's National Defense Authorization Act would
help meet the dangerous national security moment we face and would
equip our military with the tools necessary to implement the national
defense strategy.
Chairman Reed will speak later about the ways this bill will help us
deter adversaries and reinforce our defenses. It has been a pleasure to
work with him and to advance our constitutional duty to provide for the
common defense. We do this every year. This will be the 63rd time that
Congress--the House and Senate--have sent a national defense
authorization bill to the President for his signature, and I know we
will do it today. This is a testament to our commitment to our country
and also to our servicemembers.
Our threats are much greater than they were 63 years ago in 1961 when
the first NDAA was passed. Today, the United States faces the most
complex and dangerous global security situation since World War II.
China is swelling its military might. Xi Jinping has directed his
forces to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. He has actually said this
is his goal. He proclaimed it openly. A successful invasion of Taiwan
would spell the end of the global security architecture that has helped
ensure American peace and prosperity since 1945. Meanwhile, Russia is
executing the largest European land war in over half a century. But
Vladimir Putin's eyes are not only on
[[Page S3133]]
Ukraine and Europe. He seeks influence across the global south and the
Middle East.
Amid this resurgence of great power conflict, Iran and North Korea
are increasingly bellicose. Their weapons programs and missile tests
raise the specter of nuclear conflict to a higher level. The President
of Israel mentioned this very effectively in a joint speech to Congress
earlier today.
Indeed, our own homeland is no longer a sanctuary. Criminal Mexican
cartels have exploited our porous southwest border. This has created a
drug and human-trafficking crisis that is killing thousands of
Americans each year.
Moreover, two decades after 9/11, our sovereign airspace is
vulnerable. We witnessed that earlier this year when China flew a
surveillance balloon over our country without any encumbrance. Managing
such a complex threat environment requires more resources and smarter
approaches.
Senior national security officials have repeatedly told the Senate
Armed Services Committee a simple message: American defense
capabilities are spread dangerously thin. In fact, our military has not
been spread this thin in 70 years. Our industrial base began to hum on
the eve of war with the Axis powers. And since then, our worldwide
military presence has underwritten our domestic tranquility.
We have succeeded because we followed the doctrine of peace through
strength. We believe the best way to encounter today's threats is to
deter our adversaries from attacking at all. However, as today's
threats increase, our deterrence capabilities have decreased, and they
must begin to increase and do so immediately.
For the past few years, our defense industrial base has languished.
Anemic budgets created a brittle industry that cannot ramp production
to meet the needs of today. This year's NDAA is an important step
forward in our quest to rebuild our arsenal. Ideally, we would have an
annual 3- to 5-percent boost to our topline above inflation--3- to 5-
percent boost above inflation to our topline. Yet even without that
budget increase, our committee has managed to advance a strong
bipartisan product that contains important provisions.
Let me summarize a few.
Our secret weapon, first of all, has always been our people. So
supporting our military personnel is key to any successful NDAA. This
bill authorizes a 5.2-percent pay raise for our servicemembers, and it
includes a host of other quality-of-life improvements for our troops
and for our families.
The bill also contains provisions that will help the military solve
its recruiting crisis. I am glad to note we include a massive expansion
of Junior ROTC--the JROTC program--an initiative that instills values
like citizenship and public service in our young people and, no doubt,
increases interest in military service.
A 19th century American Navy captain said:
Whoever rules the waves, rules the world.
Our committee agrees. This year's NDAA supports our shipbuilding
programs by fully authorizing LPD-33, the Marine Corps' top priority.
The bill decisively rejects the Biden administration's misguided
proposal to retire several ships too early. We also included support
for our submarine programs. The legislation addresses ongoing
maintenance delays. We are sending more funds to our shipyards. It
expands our deterrent capabilities with the sea-launched cruise
missile, and it allows us to make good on our commitments to the United
Kingdom and to Australia, commonly known as the AUKUS agreement.
The NDAA also delivers a host of powerful munitions. The bill makes
six more munitions eligible for multiyear procurement contracts,
including the highly regarded Tomahawk missile. This missile is one of
INDOPACOM's commander's top priorities for deterring Chinese aggression
in the western Pacific. The commander said he needed this additional
procurement, and this committee bill gives it to him.
These multiyear commitments send a clear demand signal to our
industrial base. We have to manufacture this ammunition. We have to
manufacture these weapons. They also allow us to replenish our stocks
while securing victory for Ukraine against our strategic adversary
Russia. And we will produce these arms at home, equipping American
troops with weapons made by American workers.
Our committee realizes military competition in the 21st century will
be decided also by our willingness to harness emerging technology. So
this NDAA accelerates the development of artificial intelligence--
offensive cyber, hypersonics, and unmanned platforms. We intend to lap
Beijing in the 100-year innovation marathon. We need to lap communist
China. So we are authorizing a new Pentagon authority within the Office
of Strategic Capital.
This bill also establishes investments in space launch infrastructure
to secure the high ground in the Sino-American space race.
As always, partnerships with our allies act as a force multiplier on
all the tools we are providing American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and
marines.
I am glad this bill enhances security cooperation with allies in
every part of the free world, from the Baltics to the Pacific.
The bill also addresses the crisis at the southwest border. And it is
a crisis. We do this by requiring the Department of Defense to develop
a strategy for countering fentanyl--a DOD strategy for countering the
deadly drug of fentanyl. It also authorizes the Department to act
against criminal Mexican cartels in cyber space.
Today, the Department unbelievably pays rent to store previously
purchased border wall materials. We don't put them up to protect our
border, but we pay rent to landowners to store these border wall
materials. This legislation, on a bipartisan basis, compels them to use
or transfer those materials so that wall construction can continue.
This bill focuses the Pentagon on deterring real wars, not fighting
culture wars.
Our NDAA sends a signal to the Department of Defense bureaucrats that
Congress intends to rein in divisive social policies. This year's bill
limits the amount we spend on salaries of DEI staff. It restores a
culture of meritocracy and calls our service academies to focus on
forming effective officers and not on hosting Berkeley-style seminars.
Time forbids me from listing all the provisions we have included in
the NDAA. But before I finish, I should note that we have an all-too-
rare chance to return the Senate to regular order today, and it gives
us a chance to avoid a costly, wasteful continuing resolution for our
military. For the first time in years, the Senate majority leader has
put the Defense bill up for consideration with months left in the
calendar. Still, we must be mindful of the fleeting time. But we must
take this chance to avoid another self-inflicted real cut to defense.
And that is what a continuing resolution always does when we have to
retreat to that. Let's avoid that and we are doing that today.
We are going to take up five amendments that we have agreed by
unanimous consent to bring to the floor. The managers' package contains
50 amendments that have been agreed to by the committees and the
leadership--25 amendments sponsored by Democrats, 25 amendments
sponsored by my party, the Republican Party. And we have a chance to
continue this with votes tomorrow.
I think we should proceed with dispatch, working into the night, if
necessary, next week, to get this bill done after having a full debate
on ideas submitted from both sides of the aisle.
Let's work thoughtfully to deliver a bill to the President's desk
that commits this Congress to a national policy of preparedness.
Let me quote President Theodore Roosevelt who endorsed such a policy
of preparedness. Theodore Roosevelt said this:
Never in our entire history has a Nation suffered . . .
because too much care has been given to the Army, too much
prominence given it, too much money spent upon it, or because
it has been too large. But again and again, we have suffered
because enough care has not been given to it; because it had
been too small; because there has not been a sufficient
preparation in advance for a possible war.
We need to heed those words today. And what President Roosevelt was
saying is it will cost a lot to deter our enemies, but it would cost a
lot more if we do not. We cannot wait a moment longer to consider this
year's NDAA.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
[[Page S3134]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call roll.
Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. I rise to discuss the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2024.
The Armed Services Committee approved this bill by a broad bipartisan
vote of 24 to 1 last month--the largest margin in years. I appreciated
the opportunity to work with Senator Wicker and our colleagues to
produce this bill. Senator Wicker has been supportive, cooperative,
creative, and has done so with great credit to the committee's
traditions, and I thank him for that. I am also obviously tremendously
appreciative of the work of the staff, Liz King on the majority and
John Keast on the minority.
This is a strong defense bill. It is laser-focused on the threats we
face. It addresses a broad range of pressing issues, from strategic
competition with China and Russia to countering threats from Iran,
North Korea, violent extremists, and even climate change. The bill
authorizes a record level of investment in key technologies like
hypersonics and artificial intelligence and makes real progress toward
modernizing our ships, our aircraft, and our combat vehicles. Most
importantly, this NDAA provides a historic level of support for our
troops and their families, including the largest pay raise in decades.
The bill makes meaningful steps forward at a critical time for our
national security.
In addition to authorizing $845 billion for the Department of Defense
and $32 billion for the Department of Energy's national security
programs, there are a number of important policy provisions that I
would like to briefly highlight.
To begin, we have to ensure the United States can outcompete, deter,
and prevail against our near-peer rivals. China has emerged as our
primary competitor, as the only nation with the intent and the
capability to mount a sustained challenge to the United States'
security and economic interests.
This NDAA confronts China by fully investing in the Pacific
Deterrence Initiative, or PDI, to improve our force posture and build
the capabilities of our partners and allies in the Indo-Pacific. The
bill also establishes the Indo-Pacific Campaigning Initiative to
facilitate increased U.S. military exercises, freedom of navigation
operations, and partner engagements in the region. And, to help Taiwan
improve its overall readiness and defense capabilities, the bill
establishes a comprehensive training, advising, and capacity-building
program for Taiwan's military forces.
I want to emphasize, however, that our Nation's ability to deter
China cannot be based on military might alone. We must strengthen our
network of allies and partners, which will be central to any strategy
for the Indo-Pacific region. To that end, the bill makes progress
toward advancing the security partnership among Australia, the United
Kingdom, and the United States, known as AUKUS. This partnership
provides a valuable blueprint that can help pave the way for other
regional networks.
Now, even as we shift increased attention to the Indo-Pacific, we
cannot lose sight of our priorities in other theaters, like Europe.
This year's NDAA fully funds the European Deterrence Initiative and the
Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative to support our European allies
and partners. Ukraine has fought with incredible skill and bravery to
defend its sovereign territory from Russia, but there is much more to
be done. The United States must continue to provide training,
humanitarian and economic assistance, weapons, and military equipment
to Ukraine to help the nation protect itself and rebuild itself.
As part of this effort, the NDAA includes significant support for
America's industrial base to backfill our own munitions. This bill
facilitates the acquisition of defense stocks related to Ukraine and
authorizes the use of multiyear contracting authorities to help improve
industrial base stability.
Specifically, the bill helps improve defense acquisition processes by
enabling the Department to invest in and rapidly field cutting-edge
commercial technologies. By improving defense small business programs
and partnerships with high-tech companies, this legislation will help
meet the defense, industrial, and civilian needs of the United States.
Indeed, America's capacity for technological innovation has long
given us the strongest economy and military in the world. This
advantage is not a given, however; it must be nurtured and maintained.
To that end, the Defense bill authorizes significant funding for game-
changing technologies like microelectronics, hypersonic weapons, and
unmanned aircraft systems. It also provides resources to accelerate the
development of the Joint All-Domain Command and Control, or the JADC2,
program. This suite of technologies will help the Joint Force detect,
analyze, and act on information across the battlespace, quickly using
automation, artificial intelligence, and predictive analytics. When
fully developed, this concept will help our forces acquire targets as
early as possible and rapidly deliver information to the best operator
on air, land, or sea.
To accomplish the objectives of national security and the national
defense strategy, our military services and combatant commanders must
have the resources they need. In recognizing this, the NDAA broadly
supports the procurement of naval vessels, combat aircraft, armored
vehicles, weapons systems, and munitions requested in the President's
defense budget for fiscal year 2024.
The bill provides additional funding for the Navy and the Marine
Corps to accelerate the procurement of surface vessels and submarines,
which are critical to power projection and deterrence around the world.
The bill also provides greater predictability and stability in our
naval acquisition programs and improves the United States' shipbuilding
infrastructure modernization efforts.
The bill authorizes the Air Force to divest of certain aircraft and
to restructure parts of its fleet as it evolves to a rapidly changing
global security environment, and it invests in the Army's priority
modernization efforts, to include long-range fires, future vertical
lift, next-generation combat vehicles, and air and missile defense.
Developing these air, land, and sea warfare capabilities will be
vital to our success in long-term strategic competition with China.
Simultaneously, we must enable the Department to operate successfully
in evolving domains like space and cyber space. With this in mind, this
bill helps strengthen the cyber security posture of the Department and
the defense industrial base by providing increased funding to adopt
innovative and modern cyber security strategies, tools, and
technologies.
Ultimately, the key factor that makes the U.S. military the greatest
in the world is our people. We need to ensure that our uniformed
personnel know every day how much we appreciate what they do and that
we have their backs.
Importantly, this NDAA provides a 5.2-percent pay raise to both
military servicemembers and the Defense civilian workforce. As I
indicated, this is one of the largest increases in pay in many, many
years.
Finally, as we navigate the threats of nuclear escalation from Russia
and increasing capabilities from China, the Defense bill strengthens
our deterrence strategy by helping to modernize the U.S. nuclear triad.
And there are many, many other provisions in this bill that will help
equip the Department and our warfighters with the tools they need to
succeed.
This morning, Leader Schumer introduced a substitute amendment to S.
2226, the committee-passed NDAA. This substitute includes 51 amendments
that have been cleared on both sides, including 21 Democratic
amendments, 21 Republicans amendments, and 9 bipartisan amendments.
Again, I am pleased that we have brought this bill to the floor so the
entire Senate has an opportunity to participate in the process.
We have worked tirelessly, and we will continue to do so. I know that
Chair Murray is here because she has the first amendment and would like
to speak to that.
I yield the floor.
[[Page S3135]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Amendment No. 300
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 300, and I
ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes an
amendment numbered 300.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To amend the Energy Employees Occupational Illness
Compensation Program Act of 2000 to expand the ways beryllium
sensitivity can be established for purposes of compensation under that
Act and to extend the authorization of the Advisory Board on Toxic
Substances and Worker Health of the Department of Labor)
At the appropriate place in title XXXI, insert the
following:
SEC. ___. AMENDMENTS TO THE ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL
ILLNESS COMPENSATION PROGRAM ACT OF 2000.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Beryllium Testing Fairness Act''.
(b) Modification of Demonstration of Beryllium
Sensitivity.--Section 3621(8)(A) of the Energy Employees
Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (42
U.S.C. 7384l(8)(A)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``established by an abnormal'' and
inserting the following: ``established by--
``(i) an abnormal'';
(2) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) three borderline beryllium lymphocyte proliferation
tests performed on blood cells over a period of 3 years.''.
(c) Extension of Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and
Worker Health.--Section 3687(j) of the Energy Employees
Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (42
U.S.C. 7385s-16(j)) is amended by striking ``10 years'' and
inserting ``15 years''.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, for my colleagues who don't know,
during World War II, the Federal Government established the Hanford
site in Central Washington State to produce the plutonium that our
Nation needed for nuclear weapons.
To this day, workers are on the job in cleaning up that site. It is
important but dangerous work. One of those dangers is beryllium
exposure that causes serious respiratory diseases.
Now, Congress passed legislation providing care to those working on
our nuclear arsenal, but here is the thing: Not everyone who needs
these critical medical benefits for beryllium exposure can get them
today. Right now, people have to jump through very costly, unnecessary
hoops, and, even then, they could be denied--all because the statute is
outdated.
Right now, a beryllium blood test that is ``borderline'' does not
count toward a diagnosis even when you are experiencing the effects of
beryllium exposure or when it is your third such borderline result.
That is just not right. By the way, it is not consistent with the
current science either.
My amendment simply updates the statute and brings it in line with an
OSHA rule that was finalized under the last administration so that more
workers can easily get the care that they need.
And it is a fiscally responsible measure. The CBO estimates it will
cost less than $500,000 over 10 years, if anything at all, but it will
make a real difference for these workers who have sacrificed so much
for our country.
So I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the amendment.
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. KAINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 429
Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to discuss an amendment we will
vote on later. When we vote on it, it is 1 minute a side, and I think
it might take a couple of more minutes to explain a vote on NATO that
is very powerful.
A few years ago, people were questioning the viability of NATO. Was
it still worth it? Well, what President Biden and what this body have
shown is that, with American leadership, NATO is stronger today than it
has ever been. NATO's capacity and NATO's willingness to link arms and
provide defense to Ukraine in the midst of an illegal invasion by a
human-rights-abusing Vladimir Putin has been extremely powerful, and
the value of NATO has been demonstrated to such a degree that even
nations that never would have contemplated entering NATO in the past--
Finland and Sweden--have fought for accession and have been green-lit
by this body and now the international community to join.
There is a question, though, that was coming up as people were
talking about should we withdraw from NATO: How do you withdraw from a
treaty? The Constitution is plain that, to enter into a treaty, you
need a ratification vote by the Senate, but the Constitution is silent
about withdrawal. So, in the last administration, a question came up
about whether a President could withdraw from NATO unilaterally.
I have a bill that is bipartisan, together with Senator Rubio, and we
will vote on it later this afternoon. It will specify that no President
can unilaterally withdraw from NATO, and any effort to withdraw
from NATO would have to be either approved by Senate ratification--a
two-thirds vote--or by an act of Congress. This sends a powerful
message that Congress, after these decades, still believes in the power
of NATO.
Our allies who worry about different Presidents--should the policy
change depending upon every 4 years who is President--would take this
statement of congressional support in a very, very powerful way.
I am happy to say it is an overwhelmingly bipartisan bill that came
through the Foreign Regulations Committee in the 117th Congress by an
overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, and the administration supports it.
Finally, the question did come up once in a Supreme Court case from
1979, Goldwater v. Carter: How do you withdraw from a treaty? What the
Supreme Court said is that it was a political question for the
executive and legislature to work out.
We will take a legislative step, in my hopes today, as part of this
NDAA, that when it is on the President's desk, by his ratification, we
will demonstrate that in America both the executive and legislative
branches appreciate NATO and are committed to its success.
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.
Mr. REED. 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. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 3 o'clock
vote commence.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. Madam President, I yield back all time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, all time is yielded back.
Vote on Amendment No. 300
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 300.
Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), is
necessarily absent.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Wyoming, (Mr. Barrasso).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 2, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 189 Leg.]
YEAS--96
Baldwin
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Booker
Boozman
Braun
Britt
Brown
Budd
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Fetterman
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
[[Page S3136]]
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Lee
Lujan
Lummis
Manchin
Markey
Marshall
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Mullin
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Reed
Ricketts
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Schatz
Schmitt
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Van Hollen
Vance
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NAYS--2
Ernst
Tuberville
NOT VOTING--2
Barrasso
Coons
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 96, the nays are 2.
Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this
amendment, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 300) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, just for the information of Members, we
are speeding up the vote process. There is the White House picnic
tonight, and we have to get things done by then. So there are going to
be 10-minute votes, and we are going to call questions quite strictly.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Virginia.
Amendment No. 429
Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 429 and ask that
it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Kaine] proposes an amendment
numbered 429.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require the advice and consent of the Senate or an Act of
Congress to suspend, terminate, or withdraw the United States from the
North Atlantic Treaty and authorizing related litigation, and for other
purposes)
At the end of title XII, add the following:
Subtitle H--Limitation on Withdrawal From NATO
SEC. 1299O. OPPOSITION OF CONGRESS TO SUSPENSION,
TERMINATION, DENUNCIATION, OR WITHDRAWAL FROM
NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY.
The President shall not suspend, terminate, denounce, or
withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty,
done at Washington, DC, April 4, 1949, except by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate, provided that two-thirds of
the Senators present concur, or pursuant to an Act of
Congress.
SEC. 1299P. LIMITATION ON THE USE OF FUNDS.
No funds authorized or appropriated by any Act may be used
to support, directly or indirectly, any decision on the part
of any United States Government official to suspend,
terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the
North Atlantic Treaty, done at Washington, DC, April 4, 1949,
until such time as both the Senate and the House of
Representatives pass, by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of
Members, a joint resolution approving the withdrawal of the
United States from the treaty, or pursuant to an Act of
Congress.
SEC. 1299Q. NOTIFICATION OF TREATY ACTION.
(a) Consultation.--Prior to the notification described in
subsection (b), the President shall consult with the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives
in relation to any initiative to suspend, terminate,
denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North
Atlantic Treaty.
(b) Notification.--The President shall notify the Committee
on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on
Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives in writing of
any deliberation or decision to suspend, terminate, denounce,
or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty,
as soon as possible but in no event later than 180 days prior
to taking such action.
SEC. 1299R. AUTHORIZATION OF LEGAL COUNSEL TO REPRESENT
CONGRESS.
(a) In General.--By adoption of a resolution of the Senate
or the House of Representatives, respectively, the Senate
Legal Counsel or the General Counsel to the House of
Representatives may be authorized to initiate, or intervene
in, in the name of the Senate or the House of
Representatives, as the case may be, independently, or
jointly, any judicial proceedings in any Federal court of
competent jurisdiction in order to oppose any action to
suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States
from the North Atlantic Treaty in a manner inconsistent with
this subtitle.
(b) Consideration.--Any resolution or joint resolution
introduced relating to any action to suspend, terminate,
denounce or withdraw the United States from the North
Atlantic Treaty and introduced pursuant to section 4(a) of
this title shall be considered in accordance with the
procedures of section 601(b) of the International Security
Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (Public Law
94-329; 90 Stat. 765).
SEC. 1299S. REPORTING REQUIREMENT.
Any legal counsel operating pursuant to section 1299R shall
report as soon as practicable to the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate or the Committee on Foreign Affairs
of the House of Representatives with respect to any judicial
proceedings which the Senate Legal Counsel or the General
Counsel to the House of Representatives, as the case may be,
initiates or in which it intervenes pursuant to section
1299R.
SEC. 1299T. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed to authorize,
imply, or otherwise indicate that the President may suspend,
terminate, denounce, or withdraw from any treaty to which the
Senate has provided its advice and consent without the advice
and consent of the Senate to such act or pursuant to an Act
of Congress.
SEC. 1299U. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this subtitle or the application of
such provision is held by a Federal court to be
unconstitutional, the remainder of this subtitle and the
application of such provisions to any other person or
circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
SEC. 1299V. DEFINITIONS.
In this subtitle, the terms ``withdrawal'',
``denunciation'', ``suspension'', and ``termination'' have
the meaning given the terms in the Vienna Convention on the
Law of Treaties, concluded at Vienna May 23, 1969.
Mr. KAINE. I ask unanimous consent that there be 6 minutes equally
divided prior to a vote on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KAINE. Madam President, this is an amendment dealing with the
power of the NATO alliance. We have seen since the February 2022
invasion of Ukraine that NATO allows the democracies to link arms and
stand courageously against an illegal invasion of Ukraine by the
dictator Vladimir Putin.
Some had questioned the value of NATO, but NATO has demonstrated its
power to protect democracy against this invasion since February of
2022.
There had been an issue raised in the last few years about whether
any President could unilaterally withdraw from NATO, which was approved
by the Senate in a treaty. The Constitution of the United States
indicates that the Senate must ratify treaties but is silent about how
to exit treaties. The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1979, said that is a
political question for the legislature, the executive, to resolve.
What this amendment would do would make plain that no one can
withdraw from NATO--the United States from NATO--without either a two-
thirds vote in the Senate or an act of Congress.
We received a green light for this in the Goldwater v. Carter
decision in 1979, and I think, of all the treaties the United States
has entered into, right now at this moment, in the aftermath of the
summit in Lithuania and during this war in Europe, this Congress should
send a powerful message to our allies in NATO that we stand with this
historic alliance.
The administration supports this amendment.
I would reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. WICKER. Madam President, to speak for a few seconds in opposition
to this amendment, it is absolutely unnecessary. I cannot think of any
currently serving elected official of significance who is calling for
suspending or withdrawing from NATO.
If I didn't know better, I would think that this amendment might be
aimed as a slap at former President Trump, but surely that is not the
case.
If it is, however, we should be reminded that the former President
was concerned about some of NATO's members not meeting their
obligations to spend 2 percent of GDP but that he was fully committed
to article 5 of NATO.
You will be pleased to know that this bill, NDAA, addresses the
concern of the 2 percent. We adopted an amendment at markup, sponsored
by Senator Sullivan, that would require the Secretary of Defense to
prioritize NATO members who are meeting or exceeding the 2 percent GDP
defense spending target when the DOD is making decisions on basing,
training, and exercises.
[[Page S3137]]
I yield the balance of my time.
Mr. PAUL. How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). Is the Senator opposed to the
amendment?
Mr. PAUL. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute and 40 seconds remaining.
Mr. PAUL. Could I ask unanimous consent to have one additional
minute?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
Without objection, the Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
Mr. PAUL. It is unconstitutional for the legislature to change the
Congress. While the Constitution provides a role for both the President
and the Senate when entering a treaty, it is silent regarding how to
exit a treaty.
When the question of treaty determination first arose in 1793,
President Washington and his cabinet endorsed the view that the
President's Executive power included the ability to unilaterally
terminate a treaty, withdraw from the treaty obligations, permitted the
U.S. to maintain neutrality in a war between France and Great Britain,
and it was done unilaterally by President Washington.
The power to enter treaties is found in article 2, which vests the
President with the Executive power. Unlike a legislative body, the
President can act with unity and dispatch, precisely the qualities
needed to negotiate a treaty. And so the Founders grounded this
authority in article 2.
Passing this amendment is tantamount to altering the Constitution,
because the amendment would authorize the Senate to infringe upon the
Executive powers of the President. The Senate has no voice when exiting
a treaty. This would amend the Constitution and is unconstitutional,
and that is a good thing.
The Founders wanted it to be difficult to commit the United States to
international obligations and easy to get out. We should follow the
Constitution and vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, might I ask how much time I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute and 17 seconds.
Mr. KAINE. On the constitutional argument, my colleagues, this very
question came before the Supreme Court of the United States in 1979.
President Carter terminated a Taiwan-related treaty and was sued by
Senator Goldwater and others. The case went to the United States
Supreme Court. The Court said because the Constitution on exiting a
treaty is silent, it is a political question that the legislature and
Executive can resolve for themselves.
The Supreme Court refused to overturn Carter's action. That is a
clear green light that if Congress, the legislative, and Executive
branch agree that on this particular treaty the silence does not
dictate but can be the source of legislation, we would be able to
undertake this action.
Finally, I note this is widely bipartisan, and I thank Senator Rubio
and many other Democratic and Republican colleagues who have
cosponsored this amendment to stand strong at this moment with me.
With that, I yield.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, how much time is left on this unnecessary
and extraneous amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute and 11 seconds.
Mr. WICKER. I urge a ``no'' vote for those reasons.
Vote on Amendment No. 429
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to
amendment No. 429.
Mr. KAINE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
Mr. WICKER. A parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays are ordered, but the Senator
will state his inquiry.
Mr. WICKER. Do I understand this will be a 10-minute vote and those
Senators who arrive after 10 minutes and a brief grace period will not
be allowed to vote? Is that the position of the chair?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten-minute votes have been ordered.
Mr. WICKER. I appreciate the clarity.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Fetterman), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Hickenlooper), the Senator
from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr.
Welch) are necessarily absent.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
Scott), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville).
Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Alabama (Mr.
Tuberville) would have voted ``nay.''
The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 28, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 190 Leg.]
YEAS--65
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Graham
Hagerty
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Hyde-Smith
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
King
Lujan
Lummis
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rubio
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
Young
NAYS--28
Blackburn
Boozman
Braun
Britt
Budd
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Ernst
Fischer
Grassley
Hawley
Hoeven
Johnson
Lankford
Lee
Marshall
McConnell
Mullin
Paul
Ricketts
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Thune
Tillis
Vance
Wicker
NOT VOTING--7
Barrasso
Fetterman
Hickenlooper
Klobuchar
Scott (SC)
Tuberville
Welch
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 65, the nays are
28.
Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this
amendment, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 429) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, again, I remind Members that we now
closed the vote before everybody came, and we are going to keep doing
that. So please stay here, and let's try to get as much done as we can
this afternoon.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Amendment No. 222
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 222, and I ask
unanimous consent that the debate of 4 minutes be equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Paul] proposes an amendment
numbered 222.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress that Article 5 of the North
Atlantic Treaty does not supersede the constitutional requirement that
Congress declare war before the United States engages in war)
At the appropriate place in title XII, insert the
following:
SEC. __. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT
CONGRESS DECLARE WAR BEFORE THE UNITED STATES
ENGAGES IN WAR.
It is the sense of Congress that Article 5 of the North
Atlantic Treaty does not supersede the constitutional
requirement that Congress declare war before the United
States engages in war.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, my amendment reasserts that article 5 of the
NATO treaty does not supersede Congress's power under article I,
section 8, clause 11 of our Constitution to declare war.
According to our Constitution, we resort to war only after the
people's elected representatives deliberate and determine that it is in
our best interest.
My amendment is also consistent with the NATO treaty. Article 5 of
the treaty commits allies to respond to an attack, but it allows each
ally to determine whether to engage in military hostilities.
[[Page S3138]]
Article 11 of the NATO treaty states that its provisions are to be
carried out by each country's constitutional process. We cannot
delegate our responsibility to NATO, nor are we expected to.
Let's reaffirm that article 5 does not supersede Congress's
responsibility to declare war.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise in opposition.
Senator Paul's amendment is entirely unnecessary, but worse than
that, it is dangerous.
There is no question that, like any other treaty, the NATO treaty
does not supersede the Constitution. However, specifically calling out
article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty here erroneously implies that
there is a tension between it and the Constitution. This sends a
damaging message about the U.S. commitment to the alliance at a time
when support for NATO is as critical as ever given Russia's invasion of
Ukraine.
Further, by only referencing the NATO treaty, Senator Paul's
amendment erroneously implies that other treaties may supersede the
Constitution--a proposition that no Senator would accept.
Because Senator Paul's amendment is both unnecessary and harmful at a
critical time of our engagement in Ukraine, I urge all Senators to vote
against it.
I reserve the balance of the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. You have 1 minute remaining.
Mr. PAUL. I think it should be an easy vote to affirm the
Constitution. To vote against affirming the Constitution actually
places doubt in the Constitution.
The power to declare war is the most important power and the most
important vote that any legislator will ever entertain. Why is this
important? Because in 2001, people voted to go to war, and this body
still thinks that vote binds us to war with no further vote.
We do need to reaffirm the power and the necessity of declaring war
because we are ignoring it by continuing to be involved in military
activity and war around the globe without ever having voted on it as we
are mandated by the Constitution.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, is there any time remaining on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 63 seconds remaining.
The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. I will be very brief. My understanding of the War Powers
Act--the President of the United States may initiate hostilities for a
limited period of time until Congress can act. This proposal, a sense
of Congress, would call into question what the War Powers Act
authorizes, and that is a constitutional provision. It has been held
constitutional.
Vote on Amendment No. 222
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. WICKER. 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso).
The result was announced--yeas 16, nays 83, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 191 Leg.]
YEAS--16
Braun
Cruz
Daines
Hagerty
Hawley
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
Paul
Rubio
Schmitt
Tuberville
Vance
NAYS--83
Baldwin
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Booker
Boozman
Britt
Brown
Budd
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Fetterman
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Mullin
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Ricketts
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NOT VOTING--1
Barrasso
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 16, the nays are
83.
Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for passage, the
amendment is not agreed to.
The amendment (No. 222) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Order of Business
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, we made some good progress this
afternoon. We are going to have our fourth vote now. It will be the
last vote today. The Cruz-Manchin amendment, No. 926, will be the first
vote tomorrow morning. We are going to continue to work on setting up
additional rollcall votes on amendments for tomorrow. Members should be
aware that we will probably have a nice chunk of votes tomorrow if we
can work everything out. We want to move as quickly as we can.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. VANCE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 4 minutes
equally divided prior to the next rollcall vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 838
Mr. VANCE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 838 and ask that it
be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Vance], for Mr. Hawley and
himself, proposes an amendment numbered 838.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to clarify the
meaning of the term ``aggregate value'' for purposes of the
Presidential drawdown authority)
At the end of subtitle G of title XII, add the following:
SEC. 1299L. CLARIFICATION OF THE TERM ``AGGREGATE VALUE'' FOR
PURPOSES OF PRESIDENTIAL DRAWDOWN AUTHORITY.
The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.)
is amended--
(1) in section 506(a)(1) (22 U.S.C. 2318(a)(1)), in the
undesignated matter following subparagraph (B), by inserting
after ``fiscal year.'' the following: ``For purposes of this
paragraph, the term `aggregate value' means--
``(A) in the case of defense articles, the greater of--
``(i) the original acquisition cost to the United States
Government, plus the cost of improvements or other
modifications made by or on behalf of the Government; or
``(ii) the replacement cost; and
``(B) in the case of defense services, the full cost to the
Government of providing the services.''; and
(2) in section 644(m)(2) (22 U.S.C. 2403(m)(2)), by
inserting ``except as provided in section 506(a)(1),'' before
``with respect to''.
Mr. VANCE. Mr. President, I propose amendment No. 838 for the very
simple reason that, as we spend resources to support the Ukrainian war
effort against the Russians, we need to be honest with ourselves and
honest with the American people about exactly what we are spending and
how much we are spending.
We saw recently, in a $6 billion Department of Defense accounting
error, which fails to give the American people and fails--and what our
amendment does is simple. It forces the Department of Defense to use an
accurate accounting method. If we ask ourselves, when the President
uses his drawdown authority to send weapons systems to Ukraine, how do
we account for it? Do we account for it based on an old cost with
depreciation or do we account for it on its cost to the American
taxpayer?
I think it is very clear that the cost to the American taxpayer is
the one that we should use, and I also think this allows us to more
adequately count and account for the resources we are giving to Ukraine
and other nations as well.
Mr. President, I ask to reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
[[Page S3139]]
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Senator's
amendment. This amendment actually changes a longstanding definition
related to the President's use of drawdown authority to provide
critical military support to our partners in times of need.
It would artificially inflate the value placed on the defense
articles--things like weapons or military items or technical data that
we provide to our partners and allies, resulting in the administration
hitting the cap on its authority much more quickly. That means less aid
to Ukraine, less aid to Taiwan, less aid to any ally that needs
assistance in the future.
This would undercut our current efforts to support the Ukrainians,
limiting our ability to provide them with critical defense articles
they need to defend themselves. If this amendment passes, it will be a
loss for our ability to support our allies. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. VANCE. Mr. President, I ask to be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio has 47 seconds
remaining.
Mr. VANCE. Mr. President, I will be brief here. First of all, the
Department of Defense clarified that it has not used the proper
accounting methods in Ukraine. So I don't think this is a change to a
longstanding policy. I think that it reinforces proper accounting
methods within the Department of Defense.
The more important point here is that a $6 billion accounting error
is approximately the amount of aid that the United Kingdom has provided
to Ukraine. If we are not using an accounting method that allows us to
properly account for this stuff, we are missing gaping numbers. We
can't possibly have a reasonable cost-benefit debate if we don't know
the cost of the resources and the weapons we are sending to Ukraine.
We just need to be honest with ourselves and with the American
people. That is all this amendment does. And I ask that it be called up
for a vote.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
Mr. REED. Mr. President, is there time remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized
and has a minute and 3 seconds.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, the Army recognizes its mistake. They
revised their policies. They now use something known as net book value,
which is consistent with the Foreign Assistance Act, which the State
Department uses.
And reinforcing Senator Murray's point, the bottom line here is, if
we adopt this amendment, we will lower the amount of equipment we can
provide to Ukraine, which is critically in need of such equipment.
I would urge a ``no'' vote.
Vote on Amendment No. 838
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The yeas and nays have been requested.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso).
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 39, nays 60, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 192 Leg.]
YEAS--39
Blackburn
Braun
Britt
Budd
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cramer
Cruz
Daines
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Mullin
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Rounds
Rubio
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Vance
Wicker
Young
NAYS--60
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boozman
Brown
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Crapo
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Fetterman
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Barrasso
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). On this vote, the yeas are
39, the nays are 60.
Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of the
amendment, the amendment was not agreed to.
The amendment (No. 838) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. BENNET. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on
the Cruz-Manchin amendment No. 926 be at a time to be determined by the
majority leader, following consultation with the Republican leader, on
Thursday, July 20, with all provisions in the previous order remaining
in effect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar
Mr. BENNET. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en
bloc: Calendar Nos. 46 through No. 52, No. 82 through 107, No. 110
through No. 113, No. 130 through 139, No. 180 through No. 205, No. 224
through No. 226, No. 228 through No. 234, No. 236 through No. 246, No.
248 through No. 249; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; the
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no
intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to
any of the nominations; that the President be immediately notified of
the Senate's action; and the Senate then resume legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
Mr. MARSHALL. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. MARSHALL. Madam President, I am certainly honored to be here and
stand beside my colleague and friend, Coach Tommy Tuberville, as we
work through a very, very challenging situation regarding our military
nominations.
I have tried to listen to the arguments from my colleagues across the
aisle, and one thing I want to just point out, a very simple solution,
is to bring these to the floor and give us a vote on them.
I am happy to stay here tonight and vote. Happy to come in early
tomorrow and vote as well. It is certainly something within the power
of this body to do that. So that is one simple solution.
Next, I want to point out that the Pentagon is the one that picked
this fight. They are the one that changed the policy. And in my
opinion, this is an unlawful policy that they are ignoring the Hyde
amendment, that they are using Federal funds to aid and abet in
abortions.
As I dug a little deeper into this, I was shocked to find out that
the Pentagon's policy allows more time off for an abortion than for a
person who needs to go attend to a family funeral or to a marriage.
And I might add, of course, the military, I assume, is not paying for
the travel of that soldier going back home to get married or to attend
a family funeral.
There is lots of arguments why we think this is right, but I think
the ultimate argument is why Coach Tuberville and I are here is that we
believe in the sanctity of life, that we believe that life begins at
conception.
I think if my colleagues across the aisle would sit and listen for a
second, if you truly believe that life begins at conception, I don't
see how you could support abortions, let alone using Federal dollars to
pay for these abortions.
I remember my second year of medical school, and I was assuming I was
going to be a family practice doctor. We had been married for about a
year and a half, had our first baby. And the second that little girl
made her first cries and I saw that bond between my daughter and my
wife and every time I
[[Page S3140]]
delivered a baby since then, I have always just been amazed at that
bond between a baby and a mom, that agape love that a mom shows a
baby. It was at that moment that my daughter was delivered that I
decided that that was what I wanted to do for a living.
As an obstetrician, a person who believes that life begins at
conception, that is why this issue is so important to us. That is why
this is such an important issue that we are willing to hold up these
nominations.
I think what we are asking is a simple solution: Let's take these
flag officers and these generals, and let's vote on them. We can take
these on. I think there are only 250 of them or so. I think we can take
those on, and then let's do them.
If not, we are asking the Pentagon to go back to the previous policy
and stop their unlawful use of American taxpayer dollars violating the
Hyde amendment for these abortions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. TUBERVILLE. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
Last night, I spoke on the phone with Secretary of Defense Lloyd
Austin. I also spoke with him last Thursday. Both conversations were
very cordial. We had good conversations, respectful; but they were very
brief. There was absolutely no offer--there was no offer--of a
compromise. It is their way or the highway. Thus far, the Pentagon has
done nothing but attack me, and I keep repeating the same claims over
and over.
Since I spoke with Secretary Austin on Thursday, a few things have
changed. One is that the House of Representatives has now passed their
annual Defense bill. The bill contains an amendment that would
explicitly repeal the memos which implemented the Pentagon's new
abortion policy. It wasn't in the base text of the bill. It was added
on the floor by the majority of the House Members. The majority of the
House of Representatives has spoken out in opposition to this policy.
It was a bipartisan vote.
Senator Bennet, Secretary Austin, and President Biden need to realize
this. I am not alone. Our team is building and growing, and 60 percent
of the country is opposed to taxpayer funding for abortion. That
includes Democrats, Republicans, and Independents--60 percent.
The Pentagon's new abortion policy is even worse than that. It is a
taxpayer-funded abortion that nobody--and I mean nobody--in the House
or here voted for.
It gets worse. This morning, the Pentagon's staff who is in charge of
putting this together, gave a briefing to the members of the Senate
Armed Services Committee. To be honest with you, it was a complete
debacle. I thought they would be prepared. The briefing confirmed a few
things we know about this policy.
First of all, there are virtually no restrictions at all on the use
of this policy. None. The briefers confirmed that the policy could be
used to facilitate a late-term abortion for enlisted members and their
dependents. Pentagon officials confirmed that this policy would
facilitate abortion up to the moment of birth, depending on the State--
at the moment of birth. Late-term abortion is opposed--late-term
abortion is opposed--by about three-quarters of the American people.
To be clear, the DOD has the authority to perform abortions in cases
of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. That was passed on this
floor in 1984. Now, what we are talking about with this new policy that
no one in this building voted on is taxpayer funding for elective late-
term abortion. This is radical. It is extreme. It is downright wrong.
Third, the briefers essentially confirmed that the policy was not--
was not--based on facts. It was based on an extreme political ideology.
I asked the briefers for evidence that abortion improves readiness.
They should have seen this coming before they walked in the building
this morning at 9 o'clock. They knew they were going to be asked this.
I have been asking this question for a year; and Pentagon officials
still have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that it impedes readiness.
When the administration was touting this policy, they said it could
lead up to 4,000 taxpayer-funded abortions a year.
Let me explain this.
When I got a briefing last year from the Pentagon, we asked them: How
many abortions is this going to consist of? Well, now we are doing two
dozen a year. When this policy is put into place, RAND--their polling
group out of the Pentagon--said it will affect probably around 4,000.
Now, this came from the Pentagon. This wasn't made up by my team or
anybody else in my party. This came directly from the Pentagon. Now, I
want to say this--4,000--and that is not including dependents. It is
not including dependents. So you are looking at a lot more.
Now they are backtracking and accusing me of inflating that number.
Well, that is fine. They have a short memory. That argument cuts both
ways. The Democrats need to explain why 2,000 abortions--if that is all
it is going to be--are necessary for a military of 2 million people.
They can't explain it because it has nothing to do with readiness. We
are talking about elective abortion.
We already have an abortion policy for rape, incest, and the health
of the mom. This policy was, in no way, affected by the Alabama law or
any other State law. It has nothing to do with the Dobbs decision. This
is a taxpayer-funded abortion that nobody--and I mean nobody--voted for
in this building or at the other end of the building.
The Democrats say my hold is unprecedented. Well, I will say this:
Their abortion policy is unprecedented. We are here to make the law,
not the Pentagon.
Anyone who calls himself pro-life needs to stand up and be counted
right now. That means my party included. The Democrats' media machine
is throwing the kitchen sink at this hold. It doesn't bother me. I have
been called everything anyway. It just makes me that much stronger to
hear people complain about this, knowing that deep down, somewhere,
there is a soft part in their hearts for 4,000 to 5,000 unborn babies
who will never breathe life on this Earth. So the more Joe Biden
attacks me, the more I am convinced I am doing the right thing.
It seems like my colleagues on the left will do anything to change
the subject and distract from this issue at hand. Recently, even the
White House attacked my football record. My wife did the same thing at
times. It is absolutely ridiculous, though, how this thing has gotten
out of hand. There has been very little conversation, very little
dialogue, and that is what this place is supposed to be about. The only
dialogue we have had is with Senator Bennet and several other Senators
coming in and discussing this in a UC, but the people who can change
this and have an opportunity to make a difference in this could sit
down and talk.
I hate that we have to do this, but we are going to stick with it. So
let's stick with the facts. And, after today's briefing, it is clear to
me that the Pentagon doesn't have any facts.
For that reason, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. BENNET. Madam President, I am sorry that the Senator from Alabama
has objected tonight again. I think this is the seventh time that we
have been out here having this conversation, when I have been trying to
move ahead the promotions of our Defense Department and he has, in an
unprecedented manner, opposed it.
For 230 years, nobody in this Chamber has done what the Senator from
Alabama is doing--putting a hold on the military promotions of people
in uniform, of the flag officers of our Department of Defense, who
ordinarily come through here in a customary way to get approved by the
Senate, for obvious reasons--because we need them. They are for our
national security. They have sacrificed their entire adult lives. They
have sacrificed time with their families. They have sacrificed
everything for this country. Now they have been put on a list to be
promoted, and the Senator from Alabama has put a hold on them, which
has never happened before in the history of the United States
For somebody who has put this Senate to a grinding halt month after
month after month, he has picked an odd argument with which to defend
his position. He has said, time and time again, that what he is doing
actually doesn't matter, that what he is doing
[[Page S3141]]
in the face of Democratic and Republican--not that it matters, because
the Secretary of Defense, you know, shouldn't think of himself as a
Democrat or a Republican. But the people who have served in Democratic
and Republican administrations have said over and over again that he is
compromising our national security, which is, of course, exactly the
conclusion that anyone who is looking at this with common sense would
believe, which is that our generals and our admirals actually make a
difference and that the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff actually
makes a difference.
If that is not the case, we are in worse trouble than I thought. If
it is the case, if what he is saying is right and that it doesn't
matter, that it doesn't make any difference, then how can he claim to
be acting on this incredibly important principle since it doesn't
matter?
As he says, these military positions are being fulfilled by acting
officials--by acting officials. He says the generals, as I say, aren't
important, that the admirals aren't important, and that they can be
filled by acting officials because we don't need a Marine Corps
Commandant. In his mind, it doesn't matter. We don't need an Army Chief
of Staff. We don't need a Chief of Naval Operations. We don't need a
nominee for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. All of those positions are up
for promotion right now, and every single one is being blocked by the
Senator from Alabama and by the people in this Chamber who are
supporting him on this unprecedented hold.
By the way, I haven't talked about this in the seven times I have
been out here, but I have heard from people about this since, so let me
just mention the incredible unfairness of this hold to the families who
are supporting and serving with them, who are living with these members
of the Armed Forces, many of whom have spent their entire careers
working to get to the point that they are in right now--to be promoted
to positions with the most significant responsibilities they have ever
held.
As for the decisions that have been made on the way here--to miss the
soccer games of their kids; to make a decision to accept a promotion
that takes you to a foreign land that is distant from your family, that
is distant from your community--there is a disruption in people's lives
who now don't know where to put their kids in school because the
Senator from Alabama has put on his blanket hold, which he says doesn't
matter. These are people who wear the uniform of the United States.
They are not politicians, not that that matters either, but they are
people who wear the uniform of this country, who have given their lives
and their careers to this country, and he says that holding up these
promotions doesn't matter.
By the way, I am not going to get distracted by this, and I am not
going to criticize his coaching career tonight or his football record,
as he said. The Senator from Kansas, I know, won't let me get away with
that, so I am not going to do it. I would even say the Senator from
Kansas would have to admit, I hope, that this is an odd position for a
coach to take--that the coaches don't matter in our military and that
our admirals and our generals and the people who rally the troops don't
matter.
You know, this is a little bit like saying the Denver Broncos didn't
need Mike Shanahan to win two consecutive Super Bowls in 1997 and 1998
or that the Denver Nuggets, this year, didn't need Michael Malone to
win their first NBA championship or--not to criticize his record--that
the University of Alabama didn't need Nick Saban to win eight SEC
championships.
Of course, it matters. Leadership matters. Leadership matters
probably more in the Armed Forces than it matters anywhere else, and
that is the reason that we are here. He knows exactly what he is doing,
and he understands the damage that he has inflicted, and there is a
reason he is the only Senator in 230 years who has done this.
What is it? What is it that he wants to bring the country's attention
to? What is he asking the country to pay attention to? He is saying
that he is standing up for the sanctity of life. He said that tonight.
He is claiming that it is easy to describe these policies as the woke
Biden administration distorting the Defense Department to serve their
woke policy goals.
What he wants the American people to believe is that he is stopping
the government from paying for abortions, and that is simply not what
he is doing because that is not what is happening. That is not what is
at issue here.
He says that the Dobbs decision doesn't have anything to do with what
he is doing or with this case, and that is totally wrong.
Last year, as everybody in America knows, the Supreme Court of the
United States, for the first time since Reconstruction, stripped the
American people of a fundamental freedom, a fundamental constitutional
right. That has not happened in this country since Reconstruction, but
it happened this year.
It happened this year in the Dobbs case. It happened when Justice
Alito, writing for the majority, said that if it wasn't a freedom in
1868, it is not a freedom today. And that was the most glorious--I
would say inglorious, but he would say glorious--expression of his
judicial ideology of originalism that we have ever seen on the Court.
It came after 50 years--it is worth going through this history because
he blew it off so quickly--after 50 years of a concerted political
effort to overturn a woman's right to choose in this country; to run
elections based on taking that freedom away, that right away; to pack
the courts with judges who would take that freedom away; to create a
judicial ideology that barely existed.
The ink was barely dry on the law review articles that Justice
Scalia--then-Attorney Scalia--was writing when I was in law school that
were claiming that these originalists had a fundamental understanding
of what the Founders' perspective was and understanding was when they
founded this country, when they wrote the Constitution. Now we have
seen it manifested in this opinion by Justice Alito, where he says that
if it wasn't a freedom in 1868, it is not a freedom today.
I don't want the pages or anybody else who is here tonight to be
fooled just because they used the word ``originalism.'' That is the
most brilliant political name, the most brilliant political label that
has ever been attached to any ideology probably in the history of
humankind--certainly in the history of our country--because it claims
that they know what the Founders' actually wanted when they founded
this country, which, of course, is ridiculous on its face for a variety
of reasons, not the least of which is that the Founders had fundamental
disagreements with each other about all kinds of things. Anybody who
has studied our constitutional history to any degree knows that and
knows the Constitution was a product of compromise and consensus and
agreement and disagreement.
Some of the Founders, I am sad to say, owned slaves and fought very
hard for the protection of human slavery in the United States of
America, and their legacy will be with us to the end of our days
because of what they did at the founding. There are other Founders who
fought, who were abolitionists, who said: This is wrong. We should get
rid of slavery.
The Constitution, just like our pieces of legislation around here, is
littered with--is littered with--those kinds of compromises. Some of
them are ones that are glorious, and some of them are ones that are
inglorious.
(Mr. OSSOFF assumed the Chair.)
I dwell on this, Mr. President, because it is important for people to
understand that this didn't come from nowhere. It is important to
understand that we are at a moment when they have achieved their 50-
year ambition, which is to create an originalist majority on the
Supreme Court of the United States to reverse Roe v. Wade, among other
things, but that is clearly the most important thing to them.
In a moment of maybe political distress, realizing that they had
actually succeeded in their wildest dreams to achieve something that, I
can tell you, speaking for myself in my advanced age, when I was in law
school, would have been unimaginable, which is that in the United
States, we would reverse Roe v. Wade in the year 2023--that I would
travel the streets of Colorado with my daughters, and we would look up
at the billboards advertising certain stuff in Colorado and realize
that we live in a country that was legalizing marijuana on the one hand
and making
[[Page S3142]]
abortion illegal at the same time. That is something we couldn't have
imagined. That is something we would not have foreseen.
But nobody, when I was in law school, would have believed that you
could have gotten five Justices of the Supreme Court to agree with the
logic that if it was not a freedom in 1868, when women didn't even have
the right to vote in this country, it is not a freedom today, and it is
as simple as that. It is as straightforward as that.
When that opinion was reached in Dobbs, then you started to hear
people say: Well, don't worry about it. That is just a State's rights
issue. You don't need to worry about that. Laboratory of democracy--we
are just going to see what the States decide to do.
The first problem with that, of course, is that we are talking about
a fundamental freedom. We are talking about a fundamental right. We are
talking about, in my judgment, a civil right. That is the first issue.
That is something that shouldn't be decided State by State by State.
But it turned out that they actually meant what they said. This wasn't
just an experiment in democracy; this was an attempt to ban abortion in
the United States of America.
Since Dobbs was decided, 21 States have banned abortion or restricted
access.
Last week, Iowa passed a 6-week abortion ban. Most women don't even
know they are pregnant at 6 weeks.
The leading candidate for President on their side of the aisle, who
is not named Donald Trump, signed an abortion ban in his State, the
State of Florida, that 65 percent of Floridians oppose, that bans
abortion at 6 weeks, and he did it at 11 o'clock at night. Why do you
think he did that at 11 o'clock at night? Maybe because he knew that
what seemed like the thing to do on rightwing radio was going to be a
lot less popular with the voters in Florida and, I would say, the
voters across the United States of America who are deeply concerned
about protecting this civil right, who are deeply concerned about
protecting freedom and a woman's right to choose and all the
implications for equality that come to the fore when you are facing
questions like this.
Those are the questions we are facing right now in the wake of the
Defense Department in good faith trying to grapple with the change in
the law brought about by the majority of the Supreme Court stripping
away this fundamental freedom and stripping away this fundamental
right.
There was a time when women serving in our military would have some
assurance that they were going to have minimal access to reproductive
healthcare no matter where they served. That was the law of the land
before Dobbs. That is what Roe v. Wade said. But now they don't have
that minimal access.
The Department of Defense, in the wake of the decision in Dobbs--not
a decision, I assume, they would have wanted--is trying to grapple with
that in ways that make sense for the men and women who serve in our
military. They are basically trying to say: Let us treat women the same
as everybody else who is serving in the military.
In response to Dobbs, the Pentagon released three policies.
Let me tell you something. Let me tell you something. We are going to
have a debate in this country about what Dobbs means when it comes to
access to a woman's right to choose, and the consensus that has existed
around here for a long time has been upset by that. We are going to
have a debate about that. I am sure about that. But I just want to say
that it is absolutely false that the Defense Department has created a
situation where--they are suggesting that they are funding--taxpayers--
abortions. That is what the Senator from Alabama says. I hope that
people who are supporting him on this floor know that is false. They
know that is not true. That is not what the Defense Department is
doing. The Defense Department has not violated the Hyde amendment.
The Defense Department, faced with this decision in Dobbs, did three
things. They said: If you need reproductive healthcare or if you need
an abortion, we will pay for your travel to go from a State like
Alabama, where you can get jailed, I guess, for up to 99 years if you
are a doctor who performs abortion, to a State like Colorado that has
enshrined Roe v. Wade, that we will pay your way.
That is not special treatment; that is the treatment everybody gets
for a medical service that is not provided near their base.
The second thing they said was that they were going to allow paid
leave while you are getting your reproductive healthcare, just like
everybody else who is going to get a medical procedure gets. And we are
going to give you a little bit of additional time on this--what can be
a very difficult subject for the reasons everybody here knows--to talk
to your commanding officer and inform them that you are pregnant.
That is it. That is it. That is it. It is not more than that.
So what I would ask everybody in this Chamber, whether you are pro-
life or whether you are pro-choice or something else, where everybody
across America who is suffering now because we are not able to promote
the flag officers in the U.S. military--what I would ask you to
consider, please, is what Senator Tuberville will win if he wins. What
will Senator Tuberville win if he wins? He will ensure that women are
going to be treated worse than men in the Department of Defense.
He will ensure that women will be treated differently, unequally, and
unfairly because, unlike anyone else who needs a medical procedure,
they will have to pay for their own travel out of, let's just say,
Alabama or other States that have banned abortion, to be able to access
an abortion. Unlike everybody else--unlike everybody else--they will
have to take unpaid leave while they are trying to undergo that medical
procedure or a medical procedure that could lead to an abortion.
I don't think most people in this country who are pro-life would
think that women should be treated differently in that respect,
discriminated against. I think they would take the view that, if you
are serving in the U.S. Armed Forces and you are serving in a State
that has banned abortion and you are pregnant, and you have decided--
you have made a judgment on your own or with your family or with your
doctor--that the right answer for you and for your family is to go to
another State and have an abortion--I think most people would say that
you ought to have the right to do that, that you shouldn't be
discriminated against if that is your judgment. That doesn't mean you
are pro-choice or pro-life. It means that people can make that
determination and that people shouldn't be discriminated against.
I have to say, Mr. President, it is almost as if he is punishing them
for the rule that the Department of Defense has promulgated and that he
wants to try to make this a case of the Biden administration
overreaching, distorting the Department of Defense, bending DOD to its
will, infusing the Department of Defense with some sort of woke
strategy.
I think it is really important for the American people to understand
what is at stake here. This is not a game. This is not a game when you
are holding up every promotion of every single flag officer at DOD.
This is not a game when all you are talking about is whether we are
going to have a country that discriminates against people or whether
people are going to be treated equally. This isn't a game when the
question is, Are you going to have the ability to have your leave paid
for, your travel paid for, to have a little extra time to talk to your
commanding officer about the decision that you are going to have to
face?
Why in the world would we want to make life more difficult for people
who are in that condition or circumstance? Why are we blaming them for
a rule that they had nothing to do with writing and that the DOD had
the ability to promulgate? The Department of Justice has made that
clear. It defies common sense. It defies common sense.
And tonight we heard him say that he is here because he is trying to
defend the sanctity of life. That is what he said. And I have said out
here and I will say again that I believe that people in this country
have strong differences of opinion when it comes to a woman's right to
choose and when it comes to abortion and that I think it is really
important that people respect that. The Presiding Officer and I
actually have had this conversation over
[[Page S3143]]
the years about that, and I believe it. I think that people can have
very different moral points of view here. I think that people can have
very different religious points of view about this.
I have concluded, for myself, that I think this is a decision that is
much better left--partly because it is such a difficult decision, it is
a much better decision to be left to a woman herself, consulting with
whomever she wants to consult with--her doctor, her family--than it is
for Michael Bennet to impose myself on that decision or for Senator
Tuberville to impose himself on that decision.
Tonight, we heard him say that he thinks that DOD--that somehow this
money could be used to pay for late abortions in this country and who
wouldn't be for stopping late abortions in America; everybody would
want to stop late abortions.
I would think, if you studied the matter, if you asked the question,
``What is a late abortion in America? What does happen?'' that what you
discover is, not surprisingly, that 1 percent of abortions in America,
or less than 1 percent, are late abortions in America, and they are
situations where women--moms, mostly moms--have made the decision I say
it--because it is going to be moms and dads--but, often, mostly moms--
who have made the decision to have a child, to pick a name, to pick out
the furniture for a bedroom, and then something has gone terribly
wrong, something nobody in this Chamber would ever wish on anybody they
knew. And sometimes those are circumstances where--against all
expectations, against all promise, against all hope, against all joy--
somebody has to make a decision to have a late-term abortion.
Is that really the moment that we want Senator Tuberville helping to
make that decision? Is that really when we want the Federal Government
helping to make that decision? I don't think so. But I think we
shouldn't be surprised that we are here with this extreme measure that
he has taken in the Senate, a reflection of what is an extreme
ideology.
He has called abortion ``infanticide.'' He has called abortion ``this
generation's Holocaust.'' He won't be satisfied until he subjects women
in his State to the draconian measures that Alabama has legislated.
There are no exceptions for rape or incest in Alabama. If you are a
doctor and you perform an abortion, you can go to jail for up to 99
years in Alabama.
Just today, Mr. President, we found out that the Alabama attorney
general--like the attorney general from Mississippi, I think it was--
wants to record information and is demanding that information be
supplied to the government on women who have traveled out of State to
seek abortion services. That is a pretty dystopian view of where we are
as a country. I don't understand how you could say you are on the side
of freedom and be trying to hunt the information down for American
citizens who are making a decision that is in their interest or the
interest of their family, to collect information on a lawful
medical procedure, to try to prevent women from traveling across State
lines in this country--in this country--in this democracy, this
Republic.
How do you say that you are on the side of freedom when you refuse to
allow women to have the same opportunity to travel for medical
procedures as men, unless you think that somehow women aren't entitled
to the same freedoms as men? How do you make the case--I don't know--
that you stand for freedom? You might stand for something else than to
stand for freedom when you say that you are in a better position, as an
elected politician from a State, to make judgments about a woman's
pregnancy than she is.
This is a freedom to discriminate. This is a freedom to oppress
people. We are in a tough place tonight because of what the Senator
from Alabama has done.
I acknowledge that his State is really different from mine. Colorado
really values freedom, and Colorado really values privacy. By the way,
I am sure the people of Alabama do too. I can't prove it here tonight,
but I will bet you there are a lot of people in Alabama who think it is
wrong to be holding up these flag officers and who, if they knew that
this really was about paying, for example, for paid leave--not
taxpayer-funded abortions, which is what we heard again tonight, which
isn't true--that they would say: Man, this doesn't sound like the right
battle that we are taking.
It is like the 65 percent of people in Florida who are saying: What?
Our Governor signed a bill at 11 p.m. at night to create a 6-week
abortion ban in our State when there are women in Florida all the time
who don't even know that they are pregnant at that time?
Colorado has taken a different view. We are a libertarian State in
some respects--a libertarian State, a Western State. We believe a
decision about a woman's health belongs between a woman and her doctor
and her family, if she chooses to involve them. We were the first State
in America to decriminalize abortion before Roe v. Wade was even
decided. We were the first State--Colorado--to codify the right to
choose after Dobbs. And that is a totally different view of the world
than Alabama has, and I accept that.
But the reason why we are here is we have got to figure out what to
do in a post-Dobbs world, where that minimum threshold, that
constitutional freedom on which so many generations of Americans--
especially American women, but Americans--have relied has been stripped
away. And in my opinion, in the meantime, we ought to be willing to say
that this is a decision that should be left to women, to make this
decision in their interest and for themselves.
It is not my job or the Senator from Alabama's job to substitute his
position, his decision, to effectively say that we are going to reward
your service, your willingness to serve in the Department of Defense,
when you have been sent, through no fault of your own or decision of
your own, to a place like Alabama that has banned abortion in this
country--we are not only going to allow you to make that decision, but
we are going to say that you have got to pay your own way out of here;
that, unlike any other person, you can't take paid leave.
I think that is an extreme position, Mr. President, and I think it is
an absurd position to believe that we are not hurting our national
defense by not confirming these generals and these admirals and these
other people who are up for promotion and that it doesn't somehow
degrade our military readiness, when it obviously does. And every
single person in this Chamber knows that it does.
At a time when Putin is in Ukraine and China is saber-rattling in the
Pacific, this is the last thing we need to do. There is a reason why
our friends in Ukraine are working so hard to try to take out the
leadership in Putin's army, for God's sake--because it matters who is
in command, as a matter of your national defense, as a matter of your
national security, as a matter of your willingness or your ability to
be able to effectively fight.
So I am at the end tonight, Mr. President. I apologize to the floor
staff, once again, for keeping us here as late as I have. I apologize
to the young pages who are here, in particular, not just for that fact
but because they are coming of age at a moment in American history when
we are coughing up fundamental rights, instead of extending those
rights to people.
But that is what this battle has to be about. That is what this
battle is about. That is why it is so important that when something
like this happens, that we call it out and that even people who are
natural allies or otherwise would be natural allies of a particular
political position might in this instance say ``Man, that tactic is
really self-defeating'' or might in this instance say ``Please at least
tell the American people candidly what it is you are doing.'' I think
the American people, if they understood that, would say we should do
our job and approve these nominations.
I think the American people, in the years ahead and the decades
ahead, are going to fix the decision that the Dobbs Court just did.
There is no doubt in my mind that the American people are not going to
stand for Justice Alito's America where if it wasn't a freedom in 1868,
it is not a freedom today. We have come too far for that to be our
point of view. We owe too much to this next generation of Americans and
even the generation that is coming after them,
[[Page S3144]]
believe it or not, for that to be our point of view.
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. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Iran
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, America's attention is rightfully drawn to
supporting Ukraine's defense against Russia's illegal and unjustified
war. At the same time, we are contending with China, which is
undergoing the largest peacetime expansion of military power in
history.
This morning, Congress and the American people heard from Israeli
President Isaac Herzog, and I rise today to remind my colleagues of the
ongoing threat posed by Iran to peace in the Middle East and beyond.
Iran is exporting more oil today than it has since 2019 despite the
sanctions that were overwhelmingly passed by this Congress and that
remain as current law.
Recently, the Navy's Fifth Fleet intervened to prevent two commercial
oil tankers from being seized by Iran in the Gulf of Oman. Iran was
recently granted membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation,
which fosters deeper political and economic cooperation with Russia,
China, India, and other members.
All of this has taken place while Iran continues to enhance its
nuclear program, provides Russia with weaponry to use in Ukraine, funds
proxy fighters throughout the Middle East, holds U.S. citizens hostage,
and vows to kill former American officials in revenge for the death of
Soleimani.
Despite Tehran's reestablishment of diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia
and holding indirect talks with the United States, it appears that we
are far from the ``deescalation'' that the Biden administration says it
seeks. Instead, all evidence points to an Iranian regime intent on
aggressively pursuing its aggressive objectives.
I agree that we should avoid a crisis that would be triggered by Iran
enriching uranium weapons beyond a 90-percent grade or by Iran-backed
militias killing U.S. servicemembers in an attack, but my concern is
what behavior the President is willing to accept short of these
redlines.
While I can only speculate on the content of the Biden
administration's reported talks with Iran, press reports suggest a
possible agreement would permit Iran to maintain nuclear enrichment at
60 percent. This level cannot be justified for peaceable purposes, and
agreeing to it can have serious consequences.
In addition, the Biden administration's persistent outreach to Iran
undermines its stated goal to degrade the Russian military.
Henry Rome and Eric Brewer, two scholars who follow Iran's nuclear
program closely, recently wrote:
Instead of laying the groundwork for a deal that reverses
Tehran's nuclear program, this strategy risks cementing
Iran's status as a nuclear threshold state [all] while
shaking off its economic and political isolation.
In other words, it gets a lot of what it wants without any price to
pay.
Normalizing the 60 percent enrichment level may threaten more nuclear
proliferation, particularly in the Middle East. Other countries
contemplating nuclear programs will take note and demand the same
treatment.
Another element of a reported deal is Iran's pledging not to harm
American servicemembers in the region. Ensuring the protection of
Americans abroad is the President's first responsibility, and it is to
be commended; however, turning a blind eye to havoc wrought against our
partners in the region only sows greater instability.
At the same time Iran's oil exports were revealed earlier this month,
Israel was waging a military operation against Iranian-backed
Palestinian militia groups--Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
In Iraq, in addition to Tehran-backed militias that remain beyond
government control, Iran is gaining ground in the Iraqi Government.
Scholar Michael Knights observed last month:
Iran's allies have achieved unprecedented control of Iraq's
parliament, judiciary, and executive branch. . . .
Washington's complacent attitude toward these events is only
setting it up for costly involvement later.
The regime's ability, through the IRGC, to fund such efforts comes
directly from the failure to enforce sanctions. The Wall Street Journal
reports that oil exports are double what they were a year ago--the
highest, as I said, since 2018. Oil revenue is the regime's lifeblood,
and reducing its cash stream is a critical component to getting Iran to
negotiate.
I call on this administration to strictly enforce sanctions on Iran's
oil exports and pressure countries that help to facilitate the sale of
Iranian oil.
In a bipartisan letter I joined with 25 of my colleagues just
recently, we wrote the President last month:
It is crucial for your administration to remain aligned
with Congressional efforts related to Iran's nuclear program
and not agree to a pact that fails to achieve our nation's
critical interests.
In the face of a regime in which hardliners have solidified power,
President Biden's narrowly focused approach merely kicks the can down
the road. But this may be to Iran's advantage. In fact, it most likely
is. Current trends indicate that Iran will use the time to refill its
coffers and deepen its diplomatic ties, better positioning itself to
withstand pressure to make any significant concessions.
The administration must pursue more than the bare minimum in its
diplomacy. Keeping a problem from developing into a crisis is good, but
solving the problem is much better. I recognize the obstacles that must
be overcome and that we will have to provide some concessions. To
believe otherwise would ignore the history of diplomacy. But in accord
with the will of Congress, an acceptable agreement can be reached.
President Biden has the tools we have provided through that
legislation, and he must use them.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hassan). The Senator from Colorado.
____________________