[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.

                          ____________________