[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7817-7828]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
proceed to S. 2943 is agreed to.
  The clerk will report the bill.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2943) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2017 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other 
     purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 4206

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 4206.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mrs. Fischer, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4206.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To modify the requirement that the Secretary of Defense 
 implement measures to maintain the critical wartime medical readiness 
skills and core competencies of health care providers within the Armed 
                                Forces)

       On page 423, strike lines 16 and 17 and insert the 
     following:
       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (c), not 
     later than 90 days after submitting the report required by 
     subsection (d), or one year after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, whichever occurs first, the Secretary of Defense
       On page 425, strike lines 10 through 18 and insert the 
     following:
       (5) The Secretary shall ensure that any covered beneficiary 
     who may be affected by modifications, reductions, or 
     eliminations implemented under this section will be able to 
     receive through the purchased care component of the TRICARE 
     program any medical services that will not be available to 
     such covered beneficiary at a military treatment facility as 
     a result of such modifications, reductions, or eliminations.
       (c) Exception.--The Secretary is not required to implement 
     measures under subsection (a) with respect to overseas 
     military health care facilities in a country if the Secretary 
     determines that medical services in addition to the medical 
     services described in subsection (b)(2) are necessary to 
     ensure that covered beneficiaries located in that country 
     have access to a similar level of care available to covered 
     beneficiaries located in the United States.
       (d) Report on Modifications.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
     the House of Representatives a report on the modifications to 
     medical services, military treatment facilities, and 
     personnel in the military health system to be implemented 
     pursuant to subsection (a).
       (2) Elements.--The report required by paragraph (1) shall 
     include, at a minimum, the following:
       (A) A description of the medical services and associated 
     personnel capacities necessary for the military medical force 
     readiness of the Department of Defense.

[[Page 7818]]

       (B) A comprehensive plan to modify the personnel and 
     infrastructure of the military health system to exclusively 
     provide medical services necessary for the military medical 
     force readiness of the Department of Defense, including the 
     following:
       (i) A description of the planned changes or reductions in 
     medical services provided by the military health system.
       (ii) A description of the planned changes or reductions in 
     staffing of military personnel, civilian personnel, and 
     contractor personnel within the military health system.
       (iii) A description of the personnel management authorities 
     through which changes or reductions described in clauses (i) 
     and (ii) will be made.
       (iv) A description of the planned changes to the 
     infrastructure of the military health system.
       (v) An estimated timeline for completion of the changes or 
     reductions described in clauses (i), (ii), and (iv) and other 
     key milestones for implementation of such changes or 
     reductions.
       (e) Comptroller General Report.--
       On page 428, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
       (3) The terms ``covered beneficiary'' and ``TRICARE 
     program'' have the meanings given those terms in section 1072 
     of title 10, United States Code.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to discuss the fiscal year 2017 
national defense authorization bill, which was passed out of the Armed 
Services Committee on May 19 by a vote of 23 to 3.
  I want to begin by thanking Chairman McCain, not only for his kind 
and thoughtful words but for ably leading the committee through many 
thought-provoking hearings and a successful markup with bipartisan 
support of the bill. I believe the committee has worked diligently in 
the past month, not only to evaluate the President's budget request for 
fiscal year 2017 but also to take a hard look at the Department of 
Defense and to consider what reforms are necessary. Most, if not all, 
of that effort is a direct result of the leadership of Chairman McCain 
and his commitment to ensuring that we were thoroughly immersed in the 
details, that we had access to expert testimony, and that we heard both 
sides of the argument and led to the markup, which was productive and 
has resulted in the legislation that is before us today.
  I think we both agree that we can make improvements, and we both will 
strive to do that over the course of the next several weeks and in our 
deliberation with the House, but we are beginning with very thoughtful 
and very constructive legislation that we brought to the floor. I thank 
the chairman for that.
  There are many provisions in this bill that will help the Department 
today and in the future. It is a lengthy bill that contains sweeping 
reforms, as the chairman described in some detail, and I support many 
aspects of this bill. In fact, I was privileged to work with the 
chairman and our staffs in developing some of these aspects. Because of 
the scope and because of the range of these improvements and reforms, I 
believe--and I think this is shared by others--that we need a continued 
dialogue with the Department of Defense and other experts to ensure 
that we not only take the first steps but that the subsequent 
consequences, both intended and unintended, are well known and 
contribute to our overall national security. We truly must ensure that 
our decisions which are ultimately incorporated in this legislation 
improve the Department's operations and do not create unnecessary and 
detrimental consequences.
  Let me highlight some of the aspects of the bill that will help our 
military in ongoing overseas operations.
  We are engaged in a difficult struggle with ISIL and radical 
extremists, and critical to our efforts to fight against ISIL are our 
local partners. That is why this bill includes $1.3 billion to support 
the Iraq and Syria train-and-equip programs and $180 million to support 
the efforts of Jordan and Lebanon to secure their borders.
  The bill also includes $3.4 billion for the Afghanistan Security 
Forces Fund to preserve the gains of the last 15 years. These are 
critical investments that enhance our interests and keep pressure on 
our enemy.
  The bill provides the funds necessary to enable our operations across 
Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and other locations where ISIL, Al Qaeda, 
and its remnants are located. This funding will continue to enable the 
Department to hunt the leaders of these organizations and illuminate 
their network of supporters. Ensuring that there is continuous pressure 
on violent extremists is critical, and it is with that focus that the 
chairman and I worked to include these important elements in the 
legislation.
  The bill funds U.S. Special Operations Command, or SOCOM, at the 
requested level of $10.76 billion, including an increase of $26.7 
million to help address technology gaps identified by SOCOM on its 
fleet of MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial vehicles, which are important to 
our ability to effectively carry out counterterrorism strikes while 
avoiding collateral damage. The bill also extends critical authorities 
used by special operations forces and enhances the role of the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity 
Conflict in providing oversight and advocacy for SOCOM within the 
Department.
  The fight against terrorism is not our fight alone, and it requires 
the support of old and new partners across the globe. This bill will 
enable the Department of Defense to support and enable our foreign 
partners and also, critically, will continue to provide support to our 
intelligence community to protect the homeland.
  Of major significance, this year's bill would undertake the most 
comprehensive reform of the Defense Department's security cooperation 
enterprise in decades. Since 9/11, Congress, partly at the request of 
the Department and partly through our own doing, has created dozens of 
new authorities to enable our Armed Forces to engage with the national 
security forces of friendly foreign countries. This patchwork has been 
difficult to navigate and oversee. To address this problem, this bill 
would consolidate and streamline security cooperation authorities. This 
will greatly enhance the Defense Department's ability to address the 
wide-ranging and evolving nature of global threats.
  Additionally, the NDAA consolidates roughly $2 billion in security 
cooperation funding into a new fund, the Security Cooperation 
Enhancement Fund. This new fund will enhance public transparency, 
increase flexibility, and improve congressional oversight.
  While the Department of Defense is responsible for only two of the 
administration's nine lines of effort against ISIL--and this bill funds 
those two lines of effort--DOD also plays an essential enabling role 
for many other parts of our government, particularly in the areas of 
intelligence collection and analysis. This bill ensures the Department 
is able to continue this critical support so we can maintain an 
integrated effort against our enemy. The Department of Defense is not 
the only Federal agency that is responsible for our Nation's security. 
All agencies have a role and should receive the resources they need.
  The bill before us also includes $3.4 billion for the European 
Reassurance Initiative, which will deliver critical investments to 
increase U.S. military presence in Europe, improve existing 
infrastructure, and enhance allied and partner military capabilities to 
respond to external aggression and bolster regional stability. It also 
authorizes up to $500 million for the Ukraine Security Assistance 
Initiative to continue the ongoing efforts to support the Ukrainian 
security forces in the defense of their country.
  One major concern the committee heard repeatedly, and the chairman 
made reference to on numerous occasions, is about the state of 
readiness with our troops and their equipment. I am very pleased that 
this bill contains almost $2 billion in additional readiness funding to 
satisfy some of the Service Chiefs' unfunded requirements, with the 
goal of restoring military readiness as soon as possible. Additionally, 
all of these increases are paid for with corresponding and targeted 
funding reductions.
  One other aspect of our national security is our nuclear deterrent. 
In many cases, it forms the bedrock of our defense posture. This is an 
essential mission which must not be neglected

[[Page 7819]]

and our committee continues to support it on a bipartisan basis.
  The bill continues to fund the President's request to modernize our 
triad of nuclear-capable air, sea, and ground delivery platforms. This 
is the first year of full engineering, manufacturing, and development 
funding for the B-21, which will replace the B-52s that were built in 
the 1960s. While the B-21 will be costly, I believe this bill places 
rigorous oversight on the program to ensure that we understand the 
technology risk as it moves forward.
  Turning to the area of undersea deterrence, if we are to maintain a 
sea-based deterrent, the current fleet of 14 Ohio-class submarines must 
be replaced starting in 2027 due to the potential for hull fatigue. By 
then, the first Ohio submarine will be 46 years old--the oldest 
submarine to have sailed in our Navy in its history.
  The third aspect of our triad, our land-based ICBMs, will not need to 
be replaced until the 2030s. We have authorized the initial development 
of a replacement for this responsive leg of the triad, which acts as a 
counterbalance to Russian ICBMs.
  Let me focus for a moment on the submarine program, which is frankly 
an important part of our national security and an important industry 
for my home State where this construction begins. This bill supports 
the Virginia-class attack submarine production at a level of two per 
year. The Navy's requirement for attack submarines is a force of 48 
boats. Since attack submarine force levels will fall below 48, even 
with the purchase of two Virginia-class submarines per year, we cannot 
allow the production rates to drop at all.
  The bill also supports the Virginia Payload Module upgrade to the 
Virginia-class submarines, with production starting in fiscal year 
2019. The Virginia Payload Module program is important to begin 
replacing Tomahawk missile magazine capacity that will decline sharply 
as we retire the Navy's four guided missile submarines in the next 
decade.
  Our support of the Virginia-class attack submarine program has led to 
stability that helped drive down costs and improve productivity. This 
bill continues that support and also supports the plans for achieving 
similar effectiveness on the Ohio replacement program. Establishing and 
achieving cost reduction goals in these Virginia-class and Ohio 
replacement programs will yield significant stability to our Nation's 
submarine base, which will ensure the Navy has a modern, capable 
submarine fleet for many years to come.
  The chairman also indicated in his remarks that the bill accomplishes 
much on behalf of our servicemembers and the Department of Defense. It 
authorizes a 1.6 percent pay raise for all servicemembers and 
reauthorizes a number of expiring bonus and special pay authorities to 
encourage enlistment, re-enlistment, and continued service by active 
duty and reserve component military personnel. The bill permanently 
extends the Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance scheduled to expire 
next year, clarifies the applicability of certain employment rights for 
military technicians, establishes an independent National Commission on 
Military, National, and Public Service to review the Selective Service 
process, and makes numerous enhancements to military whistleblower 
protections.
  Notably, this bill also contains a robust package of health care 
reforms. The current military health care system, designed decades ago, 
has served us well. Since 2001, battlefield survival rates have been 
higher than at any time in our Nation's history. Clearly, battlefield 
medicine is a pocket of excellence in the military health system that 
must be maintained. However, it is also clear that the military health 
care system has increasingly emphasized delivering peacetime 
healthcare, and beneficiaries have voiced their concerns about access 
to care.
  While I know that many in the military community are wary of changes 
to the healthcare system, I believe the reforms included in this bill 
are designed to improve and maintain operational medical force 
readiness while at the same time affording better value to TRICARE 
beneficiaries by providing higher quality medical care, with better 
access to that care, and a better experience of care.
  I am also pleased to note that the mark includes the 105 
recommendations of the Military Justice Review Group. The review group 
was made up of judges and lawyers, all military justice experts, who 
spent 18 months reviewing and providing recommended changes to update 
the entire Uniform Code of Military Justice. These provisions provide a 
much-needed updating of the military justice system, and I want to 
commend the members of the review group for their work and also the 
counsels on the committee, Gary Leeling and Steve Barney, for all their 
efforts in this area.
  Again, a major effort, as has been highlighted by the chairman, is to 
continue the Senate tradition for improving the way DOD buys 
everything, from major systems like the F-35 and submarines to office 
support services, to spare parts, and even to the buying of new 
technologies and next-generation research products.
  I am pleased we have taken positive steps to strengthen our 
contracting and program management workforces and support Secretary 
Carter's efforts to reach out to innovative Silicon Valley companies 
and other high-tech small businesses. I am glad we are building on the 
considerable and successful efforts Under Secretary Frank Kendall has 
taken to control costs and improve delivery times of our major weapons 
systems through his active management and leadership, which have 
resulted in a very successful series of better buying power procurement 
reforms.
  Consistent with those efforts, we have taken steps to improve our 
ability to estimate costs of new weapons systems, especially the cost 
to maintain them in the field or at sea, sometimes for decades, and to 
de-layer the bureaucracy and untangle the redtape that the Pentagon 
acquisition process has sometimes been very much weighted down by.
  We can use better data and better analysis to make better decisions 
on what we acquire and how we maintain it. I want to note that I 
believe there are a few provisions where continued dialogue with the 
Pentagon can improve our bill and make sure we achieve our shared goal: 
delivering the best and most modern systems to our forces, while 
protecting taxpayer money in the most responsible manner possible.
  I hope we can work together to reexamine and refine a few provisions 
of the bill to that end. For example, I am concerned that we overly 
limit the flexibility of DOD to use all available contract types to 
best balance the needs of government and industry. I am pleased the 
bill before us is very supportive of the scientists, engineers, and 
other technical innovators in organizations like DARPA, in the 
Department of Defense, and in DOD laboratories across the Nation.
  We fully fund the President's request for science and technology 
research programs, including the university research programs that are 
the foundation of almost all military and commercial technology. We 
also fully fund the important work of DARPA and the Strategic 
Capabilities Office, both of which are working to develop the next-
generation systems that will dominate the battlefields of the future, 
on the ground, on the sea, under the sea, in space, and in cyber space.
  We also take important steps to ensure that DOD can better compete 
with the private sector for a limited and shrinking pool of world-class 
technical talent. I am pleased to see we have given the DOD labs and 
DARPA important tools to hire the best scientists and engineers through 
faster hiring processes and some special pay authorities.
  We have also taken steps to cut the redtape that often ties up these 
organizations and keeps them from achieving their full innovative 
potential, as well as to allow the labs to more easily build and 
maintain modern research equipment and laboratory facilities. One of 
the major challenges facing DOD is the difficulty in moving such a

[[Page 7820]]

large and diverse organization to adopt new and more efficient business 
practices.
  I am pleased the bill provides a number of authorities and pilot 
programs that will allow the Department to explore new business 
practices, informed by best commercial practices, which hopefully will 
drive down costs and reduce the bureaucratic burdens on the military. 
For example, we push for the Department to make more use of the 
burgeoning field of big data and data analytics so it can collect and 
use information and data in a much more sophisticated way, to improve 
DOD management, human resources, and acquisition practices.
  Big data techniques are changing the way the commercial sector 
markets products, manufactures, and manages supply chains and 
logistics. It is even changing the way people manage sports teams. We 
would like to see similar techniques and technological advances used in 
ways that will improve the efficiency of the Pentagon and its 
processes.
  We take a major step in this bill to redesignate the position of the 
Under Secretary for Acquisition Technology and Logistics as the Under 
Secretary for Research and Engineering. I understand and support the 
chairman's intent to make sure that innovation, research, and 
technology are at the forefront of Pentagon thinking. We all know we 
are now in a world where the Pentagon can no longer corner the market 
on the best people or the best new technologies.
  Our foreign competitors are closing the gap on our battlefield 
technological superiority, and global commercial companies are far 
outspending the government on the development of new systems and 
technology in areas like cyber security, biotechnology, aerospace, and 
others that are critical to the future of our national security.
  I hope the reorganization and realignment steps we take in this bill 
support DOD's effort to stay at the leading edge of technological 
advances. I worry that we may not understand all of the implications of 
the major changes we are proposing, and I hope we can continue to have 
a robust and open dialogue, including with the Pentagon's leadership, 
so we can take these steps in a thoughtful, considered way.
  Once again, we have taken very bold and very thoughtful steps, but I 
think we can enhance these steps with a bigger, productive dialogue. 
This bill takes several other steps to reform both the organizational 
structures of the civilian and military leadership and also the 
Pentagon's overall approach to its operations. One of the most 
significant provisions of the bill is the creation of cross-functional 
teams. The Office of the Secretary of Defense is organized exclusively 
along functional lines, such as acquisition, personnel, logistics, 
finance, and intelligence, but the real work of the Department is 
mission performance, which requires integrating across all of these 
functional stovepipes to achieve specific objectives. This integration 
task has always been a serious challenge, conducted through layers of 
management spanning more and more functional boundaries, ending with 
the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense.
  The Armed Services Committee, in the years before drafting the 
Goldwater-Nichols act, grappled with the broad problem of mission 
integration across DOD. The committee found solutions for achieving 
``jointness'' in the combat operations of the Department, but the 
committee was unable, at that time, to find practical mechanisms to 
achieve mission integration in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
  The problem of integrating across silos of function expertise is not 
unique to DOD or the government as a whole. Industry has long struggled 
with the same problem. Not surprisingly, industry has pioneered 
effective ways to integrate across their enterprises, dramatically 
improving outcomes in shorter timeframes, and ultimately streamlining 
and flattening organizational structures. This bill is the first major 
step in applying these concepts systematically in government. It will 
not be easy. There will be resistance to such changes, but I believe we 
are taking steps in the right direction, and I encourage the leadership 
of the Department of Defense to work with Congress to make this reform 
successful.
  Another important provision is a reform of the Joint Requirements 
Oversight Council, JROC, which shepherds the joint acquisition process. 
This bill elevates the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs from merely 
``first among equals'' on the Council to the principal adviser to the 
Chairman on military requirements. The committee hopes this change will 
solve one of the most important and consistent criticisms of the JROC; 
namely, that it is a quid-pro-quo process dominated by parochial 
service interests.
  There are other reform provisions--changes to the role of Chairman of 
the Joint Staffs and Combatant Commands, a reduction in the number of 
general and flag officers, and a change to the type of strategy 
doctrines produced by the Department. Again, these reforms are a good 
start, but these are major changes that may have unforeseen 
consequences. I think they would benefit, again, from further 
discussion with the Defense Department's military and civilian 
leadership and outside experts. I encourage and look forward to that 
dialogue.
  Let me highlight one provision of the bill that I am somewhat 
concerned with. It limits the Defense Department's ability to implement 
an important Executive order that protects the health, safety, and 
labor rights of veterans, disabled persons, and other persons of the 
defense industry workforce. The Executive order is an important tool to 
ensure that DOD is working with responsible contractors that are more 
likely to deliver goods and services critical to national security on 
time and on budget when they are following these procedures.
  This order is being implemented in a way that protects the rights of 
all employees, while also protecting due process rights for the 
companies concerned, and ensuring that there is no discrimination 
against them based on incomplete evidence of wrongdoing or 
unsubstantiated allegations. I hope we can work to continue a policy, 
as enunciated by the Executive order, that I think we can all support, 
ensuring DOD is working with responsible contractors to protect our 
workforce and support national security missions.
  Finally, I would like to say a few words about the funding levels for 
defense. The bill reported out of committee includes $523.9 billion in 
discretionary spending for defense base budget requirements and $58.9 
billion for Overseas Contingency Operations. It also includes $19.3 
billion for Department of Energy-related activities, resulting in a 
top-line funding level of $602 billion for discretionary national 
defense spending.
  While these funding levels adhere to the spending limits mandated by 
the Bipartisan Budget Act, BBA, of 2015, concerns have been raised that 
the Department requires additional resources. As all Members are aware, 
when the Senate considered the BBA last fall, it established the 
discretionary funding levels of defense spending for fiscal year 2017.
  That agreement passed this chamber with support from Senators from 
both political parties. Furthermore, the BBA split the increase in 
discretionary spending evenly between the security and nonsecurity 
categories. As we consider the fiscal year 2017 NDAA, there is likely 
to be--in fact, the chairman has made it very clear--an effort to 
increase military spending above the level established by the BBA.
  It is important to remember that since the Budget Control Act was 
enacted in 2011, we have made repeated incremental changes to the 
discretionary budget caps for both defense and nondefense accounts. We 
have done so in order to provide some budget certainty to the 
Department of Defense and also to domestic agencies. As debate on this 
bill continues, the chairman has indicated he will propose an amendment 
to increase spending for defense only.
  Again, this seems to run counter to the central tenets of all the 
previous budget negotiation agreements. If defense funds are increased, 
funding for

[[Page 7821]]

domestic agencies must also be increased, I believe. In addition, this 
is a point that I think all of us acknowledge, our national security is 
broader than simply the accounts in the Department of Defense. It is 
the FBI, it is the Department of Homeland Security, and it is many 
other agencies that contribute to our national security.
  Let me conclude, once again, by thanking the chairman and my 
colleagues on the committee who contributed significantly and 
thoughtfully through this whole process, and I particularly thank the 
staff who worked laboriously and at great personal cost to ensure that 
we have a bill we can bring to our colleagues on the floor and stand 
and continue a very thoughtful, vigorous, and important dialogue about 
the national security of the United States. Let me thank them.
  I know there are many amendments that have been filed. I look forward 
to working with the chairman and all of my colleagues to get this 
legislation completed and sent forward.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  If no one yields time, the time will be equally charged to both 
sides.
  The Senator from Delaware.


   50th Anniversary of Robert F. Kennedy's ``Ripples of Hope'' Speech

  Mr. COONS. Madam President, on this exact date half a century ago, 
then-Senator Robert F. Kennedy delivered a powerful speech in Cape 
Town, South Africa, a nation that was then struggling through the cruel 
injustices of apartheid. It was the conclusion of a remarkable trip to 
South Africa in which Bobby Kennedy visited the Nobel Peace Prize-
winning Chief Lutuli, visited Soweto, visited the University of Wits in 
Johannesburg, and spoke with students at the University of Cape Town.
  Last week I had the opportunity to help lead a congressional 
delegation to commemorate Bobby Kennedy's historic journey and his 
famous ``Ripples of Hope'' speech he delivered during his visit. The 
trip offered all of us an opportunity to reflect on the parallels 
between America's civil rights movement and South Africa's liberation 
struggle and to renew the conversation of reconciliation as both 
countries face legacies that remain both difficult and unresolved.
  More importantly, as South Africa and the United States face serious 
challenges to the very institutions that underpin and preserve our 
democracies, this trip served as a reminder that while our 
constitutional orders may be supported by courageous and principled 
leaders through critical moments in our history, nations don't endure 
because of a few charismatic and historic individuals, they endure 
because of institutions.
  I was honored to be joined on this trip by a bipartisan group of 
colleagues from the House of Representatives, including, most 
importantly, Congressman John Lewis of Georgia, who is a hero of 
America's own civil rights movement, Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer of 
Maryland, and five others. There was also a ``Ripples of Hope'' 
delegation that traveled alongside us that included RFK's children, 
Kerry Kennedy and Rory Kennedy. Kerry is now president of the RFK Human 
Rights Foundation. There were more than a dozen members of the Kennedy 
family, of several generations, as well as the leaders and some members 
of the Faith in Politics Institute. It is Faith in Politics that 
annually organizes--under the leadership of Congressman John Lewis--the 
civil rights pilgrimage of Members of Congress, Republicans and 
Democrats, House and Senate, who retrace the steps of the famous Selma 
march, which he helped lead, as well as the pivotal events of both 
Montgomery and Birmingham at the height of the American civil rights 
movement. These three organizations--the Faith in Politics Institute, 
the RFK Foundation, and the congressional delegation--met up in South 
Africa.
  At the time of Bobby Kennedy's visit 50 years ago, South Africa was 
deep in the throes of apartheid, with a liberation movement that had 
been decapitated in the Liliesleaf raid of 1963 and pushed far 
underground. At that point, Black South Africans lived in fear, and 
their leaders were either imprisoned or in exile. The National Party 
and the South African security forces controlled nearly every state 
institution. As author Evan Thomas has described it, ``Nowhere was 
injustice more stark or the prospect for change bleaker than South 
Africa in 1966.'' RFK would later write about what he what called ``the 
dilemma of South Africa: a land of enormous promise and potential, 
aspiration and achievement--yet a land also of repression and sadness, 
darkness and cruelty'' as of 1966. To put it plainly and simply, 
apartheid was a brutal form of racial subjugation.
  In the midst of an environment in which White supremacy was codified 
by law and most anti-apartheid leaders and stalwarts were imprisoned or 
on the run, Bobby Kennedy was invited to give the University of Cape 
Town's Day of Affirmation address. Kennedy began his speech at Jameson 
Hall, describing ``a land in which the native inhabitants were at first 
subdued, but relations with whom remain a problem to this day; a land 
which defined itself on a hostile frontier; . . . a land which once 
[was] the importer of slaves, and now must struggle to wipe out the 
last traces of that former bondage.'' RFK then paused before 
concluding: ``I refer, of course, to the United States of America.''
  As you listen to the audio recording of his speech, you can then hear 
a ripple of recognition and applause that Kennedy--who many thought was 
introducing his speech about South Africa--was instead recognizing 
remarkable parallels between our two nations. As Kennedy spoke to a 
large crowd who had waited in the cold for hours, he made it clear with 
his opening that he came not to preach to the people of South Africa 
from our supposed position of superiority due to the length of our 
democratic experiment but to share and to learn from our common 
legacies and challenges.
  Then and now, the differences between the United States and South 
Africa are profound and real. Yet Americans and South Africans do share 
more than we might widely recognize. We have similar stories to tell, 
and we have many lessons that we can and should learn from each other.
  Today, more than 20 years after the end of apartheid, South Africa's 
post-apartheid nonracial democracy is struggling to deliver on the 
promise of its ambitious founding principles and to transform its 
economy to generate opportunity for all its citizens. Meanwhile, here 
in the United States, we are mired in dysfunctional politics, and many 
Americans justifiably feel that we have failed to make even modest 
progress on the economic and social challenges we face.
  Our countries also share a deeply embedded history of racial 
discrimination and division from which we have not yet healed--a shared 
struggle exemplified by the fact that 50 years ago during Kennedy's 
trip to South Africa, American civil rights activist James Meredith was 
shot by a White gunman while marching for voting rights in Mississippi.
  We share complex histories of struggles balancing the role of 
violence and nonviolence in seeking justice and equality under the law.
  Today we share flawed criminal justice systems that 
disproportionately punish our citizens of color, and we share sadly 
imperfect education systems that don't do enough to support them.
  Today we also continue to share a struggle to find the most 
appropriate way to welcome and incorporate literally millions of 
undocumented immigrants and to prevent the tensions associated with 
xenophobia--something we have seen in the United States and we also 
heard about in South Africa last week.
  Yet, despite our common shortcomings, we share remarkable 
constitutions and inspiring foundational documents--South Africa's 
Freedom Charter and our own Declaration of Independence--whose soaring 
principles say powerful and inspiring things but whose lived 
experiences have so far fallen short.
  We share a powerful commitment to democracy framed by these strong 
original documents, respect for the

[[Page 7822]]

rule of law, and capable and independent judiciaries--institutions 
created and sustained by the work of many over hundreds of years.
  We share a striking foundational moment: Our President George 
Washington and their President Nelson Mandela--both, as founding 
Presidents, stepped down from their offices willingly and set powerful 
precedents of respect for constitutions and term limits.
  We share the fact that we are deeply religious nations across all 
racial backgrounds and all income levels. Both South Africa and the 
United States have deep and long traditions of faith and religion which 
have powerfully influenced our public lives. These, of course, are 
traditions which were at times in the past twisted into justifications 
for prejudice and racial discrimination but which also served as 
guiding lights for the nonviolent efforts to achieve justice and 
reconciliation.
  If you think about it, these shared faith traditions have inspired 
some of our most powerful leaders. Congressman John Lewis, who was with 
us on this trip, was beaten, bloodied, and arrested 40 times in the 
streets of the South, fighting for equality in the South under the law. 
He led the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. As the leader of 
the march on Selma in 1966, he encountered State troopers armed with 
guns, tear gas, and clubs wrapped in barbed wire as he crossed the 
Edmund Pettus Bridge and simply said, before the onslaught that later 
became known as Bloody Sunday, ``Let us pray.''
  We all remember that Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was one of 
the most important leaders of our civil rights movement, the Baptist 
preacher and president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference 
who, when imprisoned in a Birmingham jail, wrote that ``human progress 
never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the 
tireless efforts of men willing to be coworkers with God.''
  Similarly, in South Africa some of their most important leaders were 
clergymen. One of the most moving moments for me in our trip was the 
chance to revisit a fellowship I have shared with Archbishop Desmond 
Tutu, for whom I worked briefly 30 years ago. Tutu, the Anglican bishop 
who led the South African Council of Churches and fought for decades 
against apartheid, was lifted up and recognized with the Nobel Peace 
Prize in 1984 and many years later received the Presidential Medal of 
Freedom here in the United States. He ultimately chaired the post-
apartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which engaged in the 
very hard work of convening whole committees of both those who 
committed the atrocities of apartheid and their victims in a 
disciplined, constitutionally created, nationwide effort at 
reconciliation. It was Archbishop Desmond Tutu who wrote, ``Hate has no 
place in the house of God.''
  In both the United States and South Africa, the language used to 
challenge unjust structures and actions of the government in civil 
society at the time were rooted in Biblically based questions of 
justice and righteousness. It made possible national conversations 
about forgiveness and reconciliation.
  Some of the most striking and powerful witnesses offered quietly on 
the sides of our journey were from two Americans who were participants 
in the faith and politics civil rights pilgrimage this year in 
Charleston, SC. They were survivors of the horrible events at the 
Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, a tragedy in which relatives and 
friends were savagely murdered during a Bible reflection prayer 
session. It was a tragedy from which two survivors, Felicia and Polly, 
traveled with us to South Africa last week, with the Kennedy 
delegation. It was many of those who survived that tragic event in 
Charleston, SC, who just a few days later, in confronting the gunman, 
were able and willing, out of the depths of their faith, to say 
publicly:

       We have no room for hate. We have to forgive.

  I will remind you that one thing that is most impressive about 
Congressman John Lewis from his own experience in our civil rights 
movement is his ability to reconcile and forgive. Decades after a 
member of the Ku Klux Klan beat John Lewis and many other Freedom 
Riders in the summer of 1961, the now U.S. Congressman John Lewis 
welcomed a Klansman who had actually beaten him decades before to his 
office here in Washington and said, as he has repeated many times on 
our civil rights pilgrimage, ``I accept your apology. I forgive you.''
  One of the most striking aspects of Nelson Mandela's leadership as 
the first President of a truly free, nonracial South Africa was his 
capacity for forgiveness. Twenty years after he was released from 
prison--an imprisonment that lasted 27 years and robbed him of his 
opportunity to be a free man, to see his own children grow up, to be a 
contributing part of his society; an apartheid imprisonment that took 
away virtually his entire adult life--20 years after his release from 
prison, Mandela invited one of his former jailers to dinner at his own 
home, a man with whom he had become friends, saying that their 
friendship ``reinforced my belief in the essential humanity of even 
those who had kept me behind bars.'' Think about the depths of that 
forgiveness. As our own President Obama has put it, referring to 
Mandela by his familiar name, ``It took a man like Madiba to free not 
just the prisoner, but the jailer as well.''
  It is individuals such as John Lewis and Nelson Mandela who set the 
example of healing, forgiveness, and reconciliation that may ultimately 
allow us to move forward from our foundational sins of slavery and 
discrimination. And it is the powerful witness of those from South 
Carolina, from the Emanuel AME Church, who have challenged us anew, in 
an era of Black Lives Matter concerns and protests, to redouble our 
efforts to achieve real repentance by those who weigh violence against 
our racial minorities in the United States and those whose still need 
reconciliation and forgiveness.
  Last week our congressional delegation had a chance to break bread 
with Archbishop Desmond Tutu. We heard him discuss the vital importance 
of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which allowed the people of 
South Africa to attempt to work together to move past the bitterness 
and hatred of apartheid. There is much work undone in South Africa 
today, as I referenced, but the transformational impact of the Truth 
and Reconciliation Commission is beyond doubt in that it made it 
possible for both the perpetrators and the victims of apartheid to see 
each other face to face and to engage in many acts of contrition and 
reconciliation.
  We had a chance on our trip to South Africa to visit Liliesleaf Farm 
just outside of Johannesburg, which was the site where the leaders of 
the underground anti-apartheid movement--led by Nelson Mandela, Walter 
Sisulu, and Andrew Mlangeni, the African National Congress--where all 
of those leaders were at one time picked up by the South African 
security police. This was in July of 1963. We had a chance to meet with 
and hear from many of the stalwarts of that stage of the struggle--from 
Walter Sisulu's son Max to Mlangeni himself, now in his late eighties--
about their struggles following the raid and the Rivonia treason 
trials, after which there were life sentences imposed on many of those 
captured at Liliesleaf.
  We also visited Nelson Mandela's home in Soweto and his jail cell on 
Robben Island, where he served out 18 years of his very long sentence. 
We had a remarkable and moving tour of Robben Island, provided for us 
by Ahmed Kothrada, who goes by the casual name of ``Kathy,'' and who 
talked with us about his experience on Robben Island and about how they 
maintained discipline, how they were able to continue to work together 
to shore up each other's spirits as they coped with year after year of 
brutal conditions and hard prison labor.
  One of the most striking things for me was to hear from this man, Mr. 
Kothrada, the absence of bitterness, the absence of vitriol after his 
life, too, was marred by decades of imprisonment by the apartheid 
regime.
  It wasn't just members of our delegation who had an opportunity to 
learn from these conversations. There were also many South Africans who 
had the

[[Page 7823]]

opportunity to hear from Congressman John Lewis, as he spoke 
passionately in several different settings, both in Johannesburg and in 
Cape Town, about his experience in our civil rights movement. It was 
uplifting to see him mobbed afterwards by young South Africans 
everywhere he went who wanted to meet with him, hear from him, take 
pictures with him, and reflect once again on the common and 
constructive legacies of our two nations.
  As we look back at 50 years, we see from the struggles of people like 
John Lewis and Nelson Mandela that while progress is possible, RFK's 
observation that ``humanity sometimes progresses very slowly indeed'' 
remains true, and humanity has much more work to do.
  Today, in South Africa, over half the Black population lives in 
poverty compared to less than 1 percent of the White population. 
Average annual household income is over $25,000 for White South 
Africans, yet barely $4,000 for Blacks. South Africa's unemployment 
rate is 7 percent for Whites and over 30 percent for Blacks, and it is 
much higher in the townships and for younger South Africans. Even when 
Black students make it to South Africa's universities, like the 
University of Cape Town, they are much less likely to graduate.
  I have many more statistics that I could cite, but by important 
measures, inequality between Whites and Blacks has actually increased 
since the end of apartheid in South Africa since 1994.
  These disparities are not unique to South Africa. A Pew Research 
Center study found that in 2013 in the United States, White households 
had a median net worth 13 times greater than that of our African-
American households--the largest discrepancy in decades in our country. 
Our Department of Education recently found that compared to White 
students, Black students in America are far less likely to have access 
to preschool, advanced high school courses, are much more likely to be 
suspended, and are much less likely to complete college.
  These divides sadly extend to our legal system as well. On average, 
Black men in America receive sentences 20-percent longer than White men 
who commit identical crimes. The population of my home State of 
Delaware is 22 percent Black, yet two-thirds of our prison population 
is African American.
  Behind all these challenging and difficult statistics lies the very 
real challenge of how to be true to our foundational values and yet 
find a path forward that creates both growth and empowerment and 
opportunity and progress for the peoples of both of our countries. By 
any measure, we have more work to do. Echoing the words of Congressman 
Lewis, ``we have come a great distance . . . but we have a great 
distance farther to go.''
  In that June 6 address 50 years ago, Bobby Kennedy described the 
plane that brought him to South Africa from which ``we could see no 
national boundaries, no vast gulfs or high walls dividing people from 
people.'' Today, globalization has proven that the boundaries between 
us and them--whether by race or religion, party or nationality--are 
indeed what RFK called them--illusions of differences.
  Still, we need to find the courage and the strength to tackle these 
problems, to not fall victim to the forces of apathy and complacency. 
We must find solutions that work for each country in its own context.
  Exactly 50 years ago today, Bobby Kennedy told South Africans: ``Few 
will have the greatness to bend history but each of us can work to 
change a small portion of the events, and then the total of all these 
acts will be written in the history of this generation.'' That, in some 
ways, was the enduring power of his best known quote from that speech, 
about how each man, each individual--man or woman--who stands up for an 
ideal acts to improve the lot of others or strikes out against 
injustice and sends forth a tiny ripple of hope. All those ripples in 
combination can form a wall of water that knocks down even the greatest 
of impediments to progress and justice, such as the walls of apartheid.
  It was these very ripples that sent forth hope to all South Africans 
in 1966, when Bobby Kennedy spoke. It was these ripples that sustained 
Mandela's struggle over decades and that prompted the son of an African 
immigrant to America to take his first steps towards a career in public 
service, a decision that ultimately brought him to our Presidency 
today. It was the same commitment to equality and justice that led me, 
30 years ago, to travel to South Africa and work for the Council of 
Churches there, under the tutelage of both Reverend Paul Verryn and 
Archbishop Desmond Tutu. It was this same experience which was 
reflected in Bishop Tutu's ``Ubuntu,'' the distinctly South African 
idea that, as President Obama put it, we are all bound together in ways 
invisible to the eye but there is a oneness to humanity.
  I met a remarkable range of men and women, young and old, leaders of 
this generation and the last in South Africa in this past week, and I 
was reminded in all of our conversations--on Robben Island, at 
Liliesleaf, with young entrepreneurs in Soweto, with business leaders 
trying to grow the economy and create opportunity, with those from 
every background in South Africa--that all of these men and women have 
fought that fight, sending forth ripples of hope that brought the 
mighty walls of apartheid crashing down and built a more equal nation 
in its place 20 years ago. That has to continue to be part of this 
progress today and going forward.
  Bobby Kennedy's visit 50 years ago played a critical role in changing 
the tone and tempo of the anti-apartheid struggle at the time. Margaret 
Marshall, a student activist then in South Africa, recalled this from 
the time of his visit in 1966:

       The world seemed to ignore us . . . but Bobby Kennedy was 
     different. He reminded us . . . that we were not alone. That 
     we were part of a great and noble tradition, the 
     reaffirmation of nobility and value in every human person. We 
     all had felt alienated. It felt to me that what I was doing 
     was small and meaningless. He put us back into the great 
     sweep of history.

  Last week, speaking at that same university at which her father 
provided this vital infusion of optimism a half century ago, Kerry 
Kennedy told us these ripples of hope didn't have to come from 
governments or militaries or corporations. They can come from anyone, 
anywhere--from seemingly average people, just as was the case with 
Margaret Marshall five decades ago. Today, they come from us, from the 
citizens we represent across this Nation and the people struggling 
across South Africa to find together a better and brighter future.
  In the months and years to come, the United States and South Africa 
can and should look to each other for lessons and inspirations as we 
continue to work to heal the damage of racial injustice, to reverse the 
trends of economic inequality, and to protect our experiments in 
democracy.
  As South Africa prepares for upcoming municipal elections in August, 
and as we prepare for our own national elections in November, both 
nations are entering periods in our electoral history where our 
institutions of democracy and governance are being challenged. Today, 
South Africa is showing just how important to the sustainment of 
democracy it is to have not just charismatic, worldly, historical, or 
forgiving heads of state or individuals leading churches but also a 
very strong public protector, an independent judiciary, a vibrant 
media, and an engaged electorate.
  In America and South Africa, I believe our institutions will protect 
and preserve our democracies. These institutions must, of course, be 
inspired and led by courageous and principled individuals, like Senator 
Kennedy, like Congressman Lewis, like President Mandela. But nations 
don't endure because of individuals. Nations must endure because of 
strong institutions.
  Two months after he returned to the United States, Kennedy reflected 
on his speech of 50 years ago today, and said:

       I acknowledged the United States, like other countries, 
     still had far to go to keep the promises of our Constitution. 
     What was important . . . was that we were trying.

  In 1991, when President Mandela came here to speak, he told an 
American audience: ``I am not a saint, unless you think of a saint as a 
sinner who keeps on trying.'' The people of the

[[Page 7824]]

United States must keep trying to be true to our foundational values 
and documents, and the people of South Africa must as well. We must all 
keep on trying, as President Obama said, because ``action and ideas are 
not enough. No matter how right, they must be chiseled into law and 
institutions'' that will endure.
  We have a lot of trying left to do. From last week, I have concluded 
that we have much to learn from each other and much to teach the rest 
of the world. So let's rededicate ourselves, 50 years after Bobby 
Kennedy's speech gave hope to South Africa and the world, to facing 
these challenges together.
  I thank the Chair, and 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. COONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       72nd Anniversary of D-day

  Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, I am here today to talk about a very 
important event in American history. Seventy-two years ago today, six 
American and four British and Canadian divisions began the assault on 
Adolf Hitler's Fortress Europe, on what German Field Marshal Rommel 
famously referred to as ``the longest day.''
  As the paratroopers moved to their planes and infantrymen embarked on 
their ships, Dwight Eisenhower reminded them of their cause when he 
said:

       You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward 
     which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the 
     world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving 
     people everywhere march with you. In company with our brave 
     Allies and brothers-in-arms on other Fronts, you will bring 
     about the destruction of the German war machine, the 
     elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of 
     Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.

  North Carolina was at Normandy on that day. At 1:51 a.m., Fort 
Bragg's 82nd Airborne Division, under the command of MG Matthew 
Ridgeway and BG James Gavin, began the fight. The paratroopers of the 
``All-American Division'' were scattered by bad weather and German 
anti-aircraft fire, missing many of their designated drop zones. Within 
hours, though, through sheer guts and determination, the All-American 
Division had captured towns and crossroads and ensured that the Panzer 
counterattack did not reach Normandy beaches, allowing the Allied 
infantry to push into the heart of German-occupied France.
  The 82nd Airborne finished the war as the most decorated combat unit 
in the history of the United States, a distinction that still holds 
today. The cross-channel invasion fixed Omaha and Utah Beaches for the 
American assault. ``Bloody Omaha'' was the most difficult of the 
landing beaches, due to its rough terrain and bluffs fortified by 
Rommel's infantry division.
  Omaha was hit by the U.S. First and 29th Infantry Divisions. The 
29th, known as ``The Blue and Gray Division,'' was a National Guard 
unit composed of men from North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland. In 
the first wave, A Company, 1st Battalion, 116th Infantry, from the 
Virginia National Guard in Bedford, VA, was annihilated as it landed.
  The catastrophic losses suffered by the small Virginia community led 
it to being selected for the site of the National D-day Memorial. 
Losses were so heavy that GEN Omar Bradley seriously considered pulling 
American forces from Omaha Beach. However, follow-on units from the 
North Carolina National Guard reached that beach, as immortalized in 
the opening scenes of the movie ``Saving Private Ryan.''
  By nightfall, the division headquarters and 10,000 reinforcements 
landed and began fighting inland. On Omaha Beach, ``uncommon valor was 
[quite] common'' that day.
  By the evening of June 6, over 1,000 men from the 29th had become 
casualties on Omaha Beach. Added to losses at other beaches and drop 
zones made the total casualties for Operation Overlord 6,500 Americans 
and 3,000 British and Canadian soldiers.
  During World War II, the 29th Infantry Division had such a high 
casualty rate it was said that its commanding general actually 
commanded three divisions: one on the field of battle, one in the 
hospital, and one in the cemetery. The 29th Infantry Division lost 
3,720 killed in action, 15,403 wounded in action, 462 missing in 
action, 526 prisoners of war, and another 8,665 noncombat casualties, 
for a total of 28,776 casualties during 242 days of combat.
  Today, thousands of North Carolinian guardsmen continue the brave 
tradition of this proud unit.
  The people of North Carolina remember the soldiers of D-day and their 
comrades from other battlefields of the war. On the Cape Fear River 
sits the USS North Carolina, the most decorated battleship of World War 
II. It is not a museum. It is a reminder. It is our memorial. The names 
of over 10,000 North Carolinians who paid the ultimate price are set on 
the walls of that great ship. In Franklin Roosevelt's words, ``They 
fought not for the lust of conquest. They fought to end conquest. They 
fought to liberate.''
  As we observe D-day, I hope we all recognize the ultimate sacrifice 
so many men and women have paid in uniform, and on the week that we 
consider the national defense authorization, I hope all of my 
colleagues will recognize the incredible importance and the debt we owe 
them to do our job here so that they can continue to defend us abroad. 
We have to do everything we can to get them safe and prepared and ready 
to do that mission.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I didn't know my colleague from North 
Carolina was going to come to the floor to talk about D-day. That is 
what I am going to talk about too. I would like to follow on his 
comments, first, to congratulate him for a terrific job of explaining 
the importance of this day, not just to our country but to the world, 
the day America truly began the liberation of Europe, and also for his 
description of the North Carolina brave soldiers who lost their lives 
that day.
  It was 72 years ago this morning when the invasion began. It was a 
day in which there was a lot of concern and anxiety. People knew this 
was going to be a major conflict.
  Some 40 years later, Ronald Reagan spoke at Pointe du Hoc. He made 
the point that every church in America was filled that morning. By 
about 4 that morning, people were praying all over the country, knowing 
this was going to be a very difficult battle. It was the largest 
amphibious assault in the history of the world. There were 150,000 
Allied troops involved, and as my friend from North Carolina indicated, 
we lost over 10,000 troops that day, most of whom were Americans. There 
were 10,000 aircraft involved as well and 6,000 ships.
  It was thought that day that Franklin Delano Roosevelt would give a 
speech, as he had done many times before, called a ``fireside chat,'' 
from the White House, talking about the invasion and helping the 
American people to understand the importance of that day, but he 
decided to do something else instead. He decided, instead of giving a 
speech, to recite a prayer. That prayer has become known as the ``D-day 
Prayer.'' It is a very powerful statement.
  About 2 years ago on this day, the 70th anniversary, we passed 
legislation in the Senate to actually ensure that prayer would be part 
of the World War II Memorial. We are now going through the process to 
have that included in the World War II Memorial so all Americans today, 
and the children and grandchildren of those World War II veterans and 
heroes, as they come to Washington, are able to see this prayer 
Franklin Delano Roosevelt said that day. I would like to read these 
words that were spoken 72 years ago by President Roosevelt, if I might. 
He said:

       My fellow Americans: Last night, when I spoke with you 
     about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of 
     the United States and our allies were crossing

[[Page 7825]]

     the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to 
     pass with success thus far.
       And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in 
     prayer:
       Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have 
     set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our 
     Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free 
     a suffering humanity.
       Lead them straight and true, give strength to their arms, 
     stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness to their faith.
       They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and 
     hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. 
     Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return 
     again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the 
     righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.
       They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without 
     rest--until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by 
     noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the 
     violences of war.
       For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They 
     fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end 
     conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice 
     arise, and tolerance and good will among all Thy people. They 
     yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the 
     haven of home.
       Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive 
     them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.
       And for us at home--fathers, mothers, children, wives, 
     sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas--whose thoughts 
     and prayers are ever with them--help us, Almighty God, to 
     rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of 
     great sacrifice.
       Many people have urged that I call the Nation into a single 
     day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the 
     desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a 
     continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again 
     when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, 
     invoking Thy help to our efforts.
       Give us strength, too--strength in our daily tasks, to 
     redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the 
     material support of our armed forces.
       And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, 
     to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our 
     sons wheresoever they may be.
       And, O Lord, give us Faith. Give us Faith in Thee; Faith in 
     our sons; Faith in each other; Faith in our crusade. Let not 
     the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the 
     impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but 
     fleeting moment let not these deter us in our unconquerable 
     purpose.
       With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces 
     of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and 
     racial arrogancies. Lead us to the saving of our country, and 
     with our sister Nations into a world unity that will spell a 
     sure peace--a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy 
     men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, 
     reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.
       Thy will be done, Almighty God.
       Amen.

  This is the prayer that he spoke on D-day. What a powerful moment.
  On this day, 72 years later, we remember the bravery and the 
sacrifice of D-day. We remember the fact that this was the beginning of 
the liberation of Europe, and, indeed, as President Roosevelt 
predicted, we would ultimately prevail, despite great losses.
  Let us also today, as we are talking on the floor--this evening, 
tomorrow, and through the week--about our defense forces, remember the 
importance of this prayer, as it talks about the need for us to ensure 
we do have a strong military and that we support those in the military 
forces as we take up the Defense authorization legislation.
  Madam President, 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. MORAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 4206

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I yield back the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rubio). All time has expired.
  The question occurs on agreeing to amendment No. 4206.
  Mr. MORAN. 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. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Indiana (Mr. Coats), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), 
the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from 
Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. 
Hoeven) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Johnson) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), 
the Senator from North Dakota (Ms. Heitkamp), and the Senator from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 89 Leg.]

                                YEAS--91

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hirono
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Booker
     Coats
     Flake
     Heitkamp
     Hoeven
     Johnson
     Kirk
     Murkowski
     Sanders
  The amendment (No. 4206) was agreed to.
  (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)


                            vote explanation

 Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, today the Senate voted on amendment 
No. 4206 to S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, for 
fiscal year 2017. This amendment would ensure that beneficiaries 
affected by changes to military health care designed to maintain 
critical wartime medical readiness skills and core competencies will be 
able to access through TRICARE medical services no longer available at 
military treatment facilities. I support this amendment because it 
ensures military families and retirees receive the care they deserve 
while allowing the military to focus on its wartime medical skills and 
training, and I would have voted in favor of it if I were present for 
the vote.
  Currently, the Military Health System has the dual role of medically 
supporting wartime deployments while caring for Active Duty members, 
retirees, and their families in peacetime. However, the core 
competencies and skills required for wartime and peacetime medical care 
can, at times, diverge. Great efficiencies can be found through public-
private partnerships that can allow military medical professionals to 
focus on their wartime skills, while allowing the civilian health 
system to provide more care to military families and retirees. In our 
fiscally constrained environment, we must ensure that we use our 
defense dollars for maximum effect.
  Amendment No. 4206 specifies how beneficiaries will receive care 
because of changes to the Military Health System. The amendment also 
requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress on the 
modifications to medical services, treatment facilities, and personnel 
in the Military Health System. This ensures appropriate oversight of 
the Department of Defense's reforms in this area. I will continue to 
work to ensure that the individuals

[[Page 7826]]

that protect us every day receive the care and support that we owe 
them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 4229

       (Purpose: To address unfunded priorities of the Armed 
     Forces)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 4229.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4229.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in the Record of May 25, 2016, under ``Text 
of Amendments.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the National 
Defense Authorization Act, which we will be processing this week, I 
hope. Particularly, I want to talk about Section 578. Section 578 is a 
provision designed to protect the children of our servicemembers and 
specifically to protect them while they are at school from convicted 
pedophiles and other dangerous felons.
  This is an issue I have been working on for 2\1/2\ years. My 
involvement resulted from hearing about a horrific story that is about 
a little boy name Jeremy Bell. The story begins at a school in Delaware 
County in Southeastern Pennsylvania. A schoolteacher there had molested 
several boys--had raped one. When the school officials and the local 
law enforcement figured out that something very, very wrong was going 
on, they unfortunately concluded that they just did not have enough 
evidence. They did not have a strong case that they could bring against 
this teacher.
  The school wanted to get rid of him, and tragically they were OK with 
letting him become someone else's problem. They wrote a letter of 
recommendation with the understanding that he would leave. This monster 
took the letter of recommendation, went across the State line to West 
Virginia, was hired as a teacher, and several years later he had become 
a principal. Of course, these people don't change their ways, and he 
didn't. He continued to molest and attack little boys. It ended when he 
raped and killed a 12-year-old boy named Jeremy Bell in West Virginia.
  That time, justice caught up with this teacher. He is now serving a 
life sentence in jail for that murder, but of course it is too late for 
Jeremy Bell. Tragically, Jeremy Bell is not alone.
  Since Joe Manchin and I first began this effort in this Chamber 2\1/
2\ years ago, at least 1,150 school employees have been arrested across 
the country for sexual misconduct with the kids whom they are supposed 
to be looking after, they are supposed to be caring for, and they are 
supposed to be teaching--1,150. That is more than one a day. Of course, 
those are the ones where the officials knew enough to feel confident 
that they could make an arrest and actually press charges. How many 
more cases are actually happening? I would stress that these aren't 
just numbers. Every one of these 1,150 arrests represents a horrific 
tragedy and, in many cases, more than one.
  Consider a few examples from my State of Pennsylvania.
  Just this past January, the parents of children at Trinity High 
School in Washington County learned something absolutely horrific. They 
learned that a special education teacher there was charged with raping 
a little girl over a 15-year period. It started when she was just 3 
years old, and they didn't discover this until she was 18. He had raped 
another little girl who was only 6 years old.
  Or consider the Phoenixville Area Middle School in Chester County. In 
November 2013, the school's principal was sentenced to 2 years in 
prison for having child pornography. A month later, a special education 
and math teacher at the school was arrested for possessing child 
pornography, some involving very, very young children.
  It is hard to even talk about these things. It is very uncomfortable 
to hear about this, to talk about this, but we can't shy away from 
this. If we think it is uncomfortable to think about it, talk about it, 
and hear about it, what about the experience for the child and the 
child's family? Every day it seems there is a new story.
  In Pittsburgh, Plum High School, two teachers have pled guilty to 
having sex with younger students. A third one is awaiting trial on 
related charges. The DA is investigating allegations that the school 
superintendent and principal might have ignored reports of abuse along 
the way.
  Another teacher has been charged with witness intimidation. He made 
one of the victims, a girl who is a victim, stand up in front of the 
class, and he mocked her because she brought the issue to the attention 
of the authorities.
  This is outrageous. This has to stop. I have vowed that I am going to 
do everything I can to try to provide greater security to our kids in 
our schools.
  This past December we took a big step in the right direction, in my 
view. Congress passed legislation, and President Obama signed it into 
law. It was legislation in the broader education bill we passed that 
had my legislation which now explicitly prohibits, forbids, knowingly 
recommending one of these monsters for hire. So exactly the 
circumstances that gave rise to the murder of Jeremy Bell--where a 
school knows they have a pedophile, they discover it, and they still 
send along a letter of recommendation so that he can become someone 
else's problem--are now illegal, as well they should be. It is not as 
rare as you might think. In fact, the practice is so common that it is 
well understood in the circles of child advocates and the people who 
prosecute these crimes and who defend children when they have been 
victimized by these crimes. It is so common that it even has its own 
name. It is called ``passing the trash.'' But, unfortunately, when we 
got that piece of our legislation passed, we were not successful in 
persuading all of our colleagues that we also had to have another 
element to this. To really keep our kids safe, we need to make sure 
that we have a rigorous background check and that people aren't able to 
skirt--and we know that does happen.
  I promised I would be back on the Senate floor to try to address this 
weakness, this loophole--the fact that we don't have consistently 
rigorous background checks--to make sure that we are not hiring these 
creeps in the first place.
  I am very pleased to announce today that I think we are very close to 
taking another step forward in this legislation, thanks to Chairman 
McCain, who just left the floor. But the senior Senator from Arizona, 
the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, incorporated into this 
legislation, the national defense authorization bill, the bill that I 
introduced to protect our servicemembers' children. That is what it is 
called; it is called the Protecting Our Servicemembers' Children from 
Sexual and Violent Predators Act. It simply states that a school 
district that accepts Impact money--that is the funding we approve in 
Congress; it runs through the Defense Department, and it goes to the 
school districts that are educating the children of our servicemembers 
when they are on a base. What our legislation says is that such a 
school district has to have a safe environment for kids. That is all. 
They have to have a policy requiring criminal background checks for all 
the school workers, any adults, who have unsupervised contact with 
children. If a person applies for a job with such a school and it turns 
out they have been convicted--not alleged, but convicted of a serious 
crime, including murder, rape, or any violent or sexual crime against 
children--then such a person may not be employed at a school in a 
capacity where they would have unsupervised access to children. As I 
said, this applies only to those school districts that receive Federal 
Impact Aid; that is, those school districts that receive money to help 
compensate them for the fact that they are educating our military 
families' children. It is about 17 percent of America's school 
districts

[[Page 7827]]

that receive this Federal Impact Aid. It is roughly 8.5 million kids.
  The legislation also applies to the DOD-operated schools. The Defense 
Department operates its own schools to educate the children of our 
military personnel. To the credit of the Defense Department, it is 
already their own internal policy to require these appropriate 
background checks that are rigorous enough to make sure that we stop a 
violent predator from being hired in this capacity.
  Because it is just internal policy, it could change, and enforcement 
could lapse. What our legislation does is codify it because this is the 
right thing to do. Let's codify it. Since it is the right thing to do 
and we are doing it at our DOD schools, let's also do it at the other 
schools that are educating our military families' kids.
  I don't think this should even be controversial. Pennsylvanians whom 
I talk to don't think this is controversial. Of course, they think we 
should insist that our schools are at least as safe an environment as 
we can make them. While the men and women are providing enormous 
service to all of us--the sacrifice they make by wearing the uniform, 
committing to serving in our Armed Forces--don't we owe it to them to 
provide the level of protection that we can provide to their kids? I 
think we do.
  In addition, it shouldn't be controversial because, substantively, 
this isn't anything new.
  Last year every Member of Congress but one--the vote was 523 to 1, 
the House and the Senate--passed almost identical background check 
legislation with respect to daycare workers who worked for a daycare 
that got funding through the childcare and development block grant 
bill. In other words, we have already agreed. With 1 dissenting vote--
out of 100 Senators and 435 House Members, there was 1 dissenting vote. 
Every other Senator and House Member on both sides of the aisle agreed 
that this level of background check security ought to be provided for 
very young kids. Why wouldn't we do it for slightly older kids--the 
kids who are in primary and secondary schools--as well?
  Despite that, there is opposition. Just last week, the senior Senator 
from Illinois came to the floor to criticize my legislation. He stated: 
``This provision fails to provide adequate due process and civil rights 
protections for innocent individuals.'' I want to address this because 
I couldn't disagree more.
  First, it is important to note that our legislation--the legislation 
that forbids the hiring of these pedophiles, people who have committed 
these terrible crimes against kids--applies only if the applicant has 
been convicted of a crime. If you have been alleged or rumored--that is 
not what the legislation contemplates; it is only someone who has been 
convicted.
  The last time I checked, our criminal justice system was loaded with 
due process rights. In order to get a conviction, we have very 
elaborate processes that someone can avail themselves of, and of course 
they always do. So nobody has been convicted without having had the 
opportunity for all of us to pay for their lawyer to defend them, for 
instance, if they need to; to have a jury trial if they want to do 
that; all the civil rights guarantees throughout the Constitution. It 
is all there. Due process--they have already had enormous due process 
or they wouldn't have been convicted.
  But our legislation goes a step beyond that. What we do is we say 
that the applicant is entitled to a copy of the background check, so 
they get full disclosure of whatever was discovered, and the school 
district must have an appeals process if it turns out the applicant is 
denied, because we acknowledge that it is conceivable that there could 
be a mistake. It could be like the wrong John Smith who is applying for 
a job at a school. There could be an error of some sort. In the first 
place, you have to have been convicted, and in the second place, you 
get to appeal. What more due process is necessary than that?
  Well, I can tell you because we have had this debate before, and some 
on the other side have suggested that they want something that I don't 
even think qualifies as due process. It is a totally different 
category, but they call it due process. What they want is a carve-out. 
They want a minitrial. They want to give the convicted pedophile the 
opportunity to make the case for why an exception should be made in his 
case. It is unbelievable to me. How do I know this? Because last year 
39 special interest groups sent a letter to the Senate asserting that 
it is unfair to deny even a convicted child molester a teaching job. 
They wrote this. I am going to quote from the letter briefly. It says:

       We believe that individuals who have been convicted of 
     crimes and have completed their sentences should not be 
     unnecessarily subjected to additional punishments because of 
     these convictions.

  Let's think about what they are saying. What they are explicitly 
saying is that a person could admit to and be convicted of raping a 
child, serve a sentence, walk out of prison, go down the road to the 
local elementary school, apply for a job as a teacher, and they should 
be hired. It is unbelievable.
  I am not suggesting that the pedophile should never be eligible to do 
any work at all, never have any job. That is not what I am saying. But 
how about we keep them away from young kids? Is that really 
unreasonable? That is all we are asking for. That is what we are 
saying.
  We have other colleagues who object to this notion, this legislative 
approach, on the grounds that it offends their sense of federalism. 
They think we should leave it to the States to decide whether and to 
what extent the States and school districts will protect kids from 
predators. I strongly disagree with that for many reasons. We might 
well have an extended debate about that, but let me just give two brief 
ones.
  First, I think we have an oversight responsibility. I think the 
Pennsylvanians who send me to the Senate and know I am casting votes on 
how we are going to spend their tax dollars expect that I am providing 
some kind of oversight--such that, for instance, their tax dollars 
aren't used to hire a pedophile in a school. That would not be a 
controversial notion with my constituents.
  The second thing is that the folks who are hung up on the federalism 
issue insist that every State is free to do what it wants to do. They 
have to be able to pass whatever laws--or not--as they see fit.
  What about the military family who can't determine which State? They 
don't get to pick the State in which they are based--not always. They 
are in a State. It is not their native State. They are assigned to that 
base in a particular State, and they have to live with whatever the 
laws are there.
  Don't we agree that every child in America deserves to have 
protection from these predators?
  I do.
  Our legislation doesn't go that far. I wish it did. We tried, and I 
am not going to give up. But can't we at least provide that security 
for the children of our military families? That is what our legislation 
does do.
  Again, I want to thank Chairman McCain. He has been a consistent 
advocate for providing this level of protection to children. He was a 
cosponsor of my legislation that prohibited passing the trash. His 
support was essential in getting it passed last year, and I am really 
proud of and grateful to him for working with me to incorporate the 
language of my legislation into our NDAA legislation.
  I strongly urge my colleagues that it is past time to act on this. As 
I said, Senator Manchin and I have been pushing this for 2\1/2\ years, 
and in that time another 1,150 school employees have been arrested for 
sexual misconduct with the kids they are supposed to be taking care of.
  Clearly, we are not doing enough. And we really need to ask 
ourselves: How much bigger does that number have to get? How many more 
children have to have their childhoods ruined? How many families need 
to be torn apart before we are willing to pass this measure? I would 
argue that we have seen more than enough, the children of America have 
seen more than enough, and the children of the men and women

[[Page 7828]]

who wear the uniform of this country and who make the sacrifices to 
protect and defend all of us absolutely deserve this protection.
  So I hope we will pass this Defense authorization bill with this 
language intact, and I once again express my appreciation to the 
chairman for putting it into the base text.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, 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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Remembering Muhammad Ali

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, over the weekend the world learned the 
sad news of the passing of Muhammad Ali. Ali was one of the preeminent 
athletes of the 20th century. His story was an American story. It is 
one that touched people in every corner of the world. It is one that 
began in my hometown of Louisville. Louisville is where he grew up. 
Louisville is where he fought his first professional fight. Louisville 
is where the Muhammad Ali Center stands today. It is a memorial to his 
legacy and to his life story. It is where mourners now lay flowers in 
his memory.
  As people around the world honor ``The Greatest,'' the spotlight 
shines bright upon his hometown. I wish to again add my condolences as 
well. I wish to again recognize a legend from Louisville who was more 
than just a boxer, he was an icon known for grace on his feet and power 
in his fists inside the ring and a great exuberance for life outside 
it.
  Mr. President, after needless and inexplicable delay by colleagues 
across the aisle, we have begun consideration of the National Defense 
Authorization Act today and will work to pass it this week.
  The NDAA authorizes funds aimed at meeting the combat-readiness needs 
of our armed services, maintaining our national security posture, and 
supporting defense health care and benefits for servicemembers and 
their families. It is an important measure we consider each year. It is 
especially critical today given the myriad of threats facing our 
country.
  The next Commander in Chief, regardless of party, will take office 
facing a number of security challenges--everything from instability in 
Libya, Syria, and Yemen, to a belligerent North Korea, to a newly 
aggressive Russia. It is imperative to do what we can now to better 
position our country to confront challenges currently facing us and to 
better prepare for those yet to come.
  Ensuring military readiness and keeping Americans safe should be a 
top priority for all of us, so I would encourage my colleagues to put 
aside partisan politics and work together to bring this NDAA across the 
finish line this week. We may pass the bill on Friday, we may pass it 
sooner, but we will pass it this week. So let's all work hard to do so.

                          ____________________