[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8642-8650]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 2943, which the clerk will 
report.
  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.

  Pending:

       McCain amendment No. 4607, to amend the provision on share-
     in-savings contracts.
       Reed (for Reid) amendment No. 4603 (to amendment No. 4607), 
     to change the enactment date.


[[Page 8643]]


  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 11 a.m. will be equally divided between the two managers or their 
designees.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.


                      Amendment No. 4603 Withdrawn

  Mr. REED. Madam President, I withdraw amendment No. 4603.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The Senator from Florida.


                Amendment No. 4670 to Amendment No. 4607

  Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 4670.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Nelson] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4670 to amendment No. 4607.

  Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

                  (Purpose: To improve the amendment)

       On page 1, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

     SEC. 829B. COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT AND PHASE OUT OF ROCKET 
                   ENGINES FROM THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION IN THE 
                   EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAM FOR 
                   SPACE LAUNCH OF NATIONAL SECURITY SATELLITES.

       (a) Ineffectiveness of Superseded Requirements.--Sections 
     1036 and 1037 shall have no force or effect, and the 
     amendments proposed to be made by section 1037 shall not be 
     made.
       (b) In General.--Any competition for a contract for the 
     provision of launch services for the evolved expendable 
     launch vehicle program shall be open for award to all 
     certified providers of evolved expendable launch vehicle-
     class systems.
       (c) Award of Contracts.--In awarding a contract under 
     subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense--
       (1) subject to paragraph (2) and subsection (d), and 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, may, during the 
     period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and 
     ending on December 31, 2022, award the contract to a provider 
     of launch services that intends to use any certified launch 
     vehicle in its inventory without regard to the country of 
     origin of the rocket engine that will be used on that launch 
     vehicle; and
       (2) may only award contracts utilizing an engine designed 
     or manufactured in the Russian Federation for phase 1(a) and 
     phase 2 evolved expendable launch vehicle procurements.
       (d) Limitation.--The total number of rocket engines 
     designed or manufactured in the Russian Federation and used 
     on launch vehicles for the evolved expendable launch vehicle 
     program shall not exceed 18.

  Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I want to thank the leaders of our Armed 
Services Committee for working out what had been a difficult situation 
going forward with regard to assured access to space over a 6-year 
period starting in fiscal year 2017 and going through fiscal year 2022. 
We have been able to work this out, and that is the subject of the 
amendment I have just called up.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, does that complete the work on the 
amendment?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment is the pending 
business.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I just want to say to the Senator from 
Florida that I thank him for his intermediary work and his effort to 
reach this compromise. He brings unique credentials to this issue, 
given his experience up in space. Although some have argued that he has 
never returned, I don't agree with that assessment. But seriously, I 
thank the Senator from Florida for his intermediary work, without whom 
this compromise would not have been achieved.
  I know the Senator from Florida shares my commitment to freeing this 
Nation from dependency on the use of Russian rocket engines which then 
provide an economic boost--in some cases billions of dollars--to 
Vladimir Putin and his cronies. So I just want to make a special note 
of appreciation to the Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. If the Senator will yield, I just wish to thank him for 
his comments. Indeed, some folks wish that I were still in orbit, and I 
understand that.
  I want the Senator to know that I have great affection and great 
respect for the chairman of our committee and for him and for the 
Senator from Alabama to be reasonable in finding an accommodation about 
this so that this country would have assured access to space. 
Certainly, the Senator from Illinois, as the ranking member of that 
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, likewise, has also been in the 
mix. I am very grateful that this issue is behind us and we can move 
on.
  I might note that there is one technical change we will have to make 
in the conference committee. It is technical in nature, but it is 
necessary to get the language right.
  I thank the chairman of our committee.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. NELSON. The Senator from Arizona has the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. If I could ask for the floor for 2 minutes, I thank the 
Senator from Florida for his leadership on this issue. It has been a 
contentious, hotly debated, and in some ways divisive issue between 
appropriations and authorization committees in the Senate. When Senator 
Nelson told me he was willing to step up and try to be that bridge over 
troubled waters, I welcomed his entry into that conversation.
  I thank him, Senator Gardner, Senator Bennet, Senator Cochran, 
Senator Shelby, Senator McCain, and all who have engaged in this. We 
have come to the right place, where we are going to be promoting 
competition, which is good for taxpayers, and we are also going to do 
it in a way that protects our national security interests.
  I thank the Senator from Florida for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the vote is scheduled for 11 o'clock 
this morning, and we will be voting on the Defense authorization bill. 
Unfortunately, we have a situation on the objections of a Senator or 
Senators that their amendment is not allowed because of the objections 
of another Senator. In other words, we now have a situation where there 
are Senators in the Senate for whom it is either their way or the 
highway, and if they are not having an amendment that is agreed to, 
then they will object to other Senators' amendments no matter whether 
those amendments have any validity or any support.
  There are a number of them, but there is one that particularly 
bothers me, which will probably cost the lives of some brave men--
mostly men but maybe some women--who assisted us as interpreters in 
Afghanistan. They are on the list. The Senator from South Carolina 
pointed out the night letters that go to the interpreters that they are 
going to be killed--they and their families--for cooperating with our 
military and our civilians who are over there, whose work does save 
lives.
  The Senator from South Carolina has been there many, many, many times 
and has worked with these interpreters. So I will let him speak on this 
issue. But really, by not allowing this amendment--where the vote would 
probably be 99 to 1 because we reached an agreement with the chairman 
of the Judiciary Committee and also with Senator Sessions--we are 
unable. We are unable to provide for the ability of these interpreters 
to come to the United States because of an unrelated amendment.
  I say to my colleagues, that is not the way the Senate should 
operate. Each amendment should be judged on its own merits or demerits 
and debated and voted on. So this practice--and we are about to see it 
on a managers' package now from the other side because their amendment 
is being objected to--is that we don't move forward with legislation 
that literally is going to cause the loss of innocent people's lives, 
whose only crime is that they cooperated and assisted the United States 
of America and our military in carrying out their duties in 
Afghanistan. That to me--that to me--is a shameful chapter. It is a 
shameful comment on the United States of

[[Page 8644]]

America and honoring our commitments to the brave people who helped us 
and literally saved American lives.
  I ask my colleague from South Carolina, who actually has dealt with 
these people on many, many occasions, what his view is on this 
particular issue.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator from Arizona.
  I want to put this issue and what we are trying to do in the context 
of what has happened in the last couple of days and what I think is 
going to happen in the future.
  No. 1, there is strong bipartisan support to increase the number of 
visas available to Afghans who have actively helped us in the war 
against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The reason this is so 
important is that it is impossible for America to defend herself 
without partners.
  To those who suggest you can win the war against radical Islam 
without partners, you have no idea what you are talking about. To those 
who suggest we can't let people come to our country after they risk 
their lives protecting our soldiers and civilians in Afghanistan and 
who are protecting us, then you don't understand the war at all. This 
is radical Islam against the world, not just the Islamic faith. The 
world should be at war with radical Islam.
  As to what happened in Florida, there is no doubt in my mind that 
these young people were killed by a radical Islamic sympathizer because 
they were gay. In a radical Islam world, gay people are sentenced to 
death just simply for being gay. They are thrown off the roofs of homes 
by ISIL inside of Syria and Iraq. So don't make any mistake about it, 
the reason these people were killed is because radical Islam judges 
them to be unworthy of life.
  Please make no mistake about it, radical Islamists would kill 
everybody in this Chamber because we will not bend to their will in 
terms of religion. Please make no mistake about it, most people in the 
faith are not buying what these nut jobs are selling.
  I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan 37 times, and I can tell you 
thousands have died fighting radical Islam in Iraq, in Syria, and in 
Afghanistan because they don't want to live under the thumb of 
religious Nazis. So the thousands who have helped us as interpreters 
and who have gone outside the wire with us to make us a more effective 
fighting force, they have literally risked their lives and their 
families' lives, and if we don't give them an out, an exit, they are 
going to get killed, and it is going to be hard to have anybody help us 
in the future.
  I have told Senator Lee, whom I have a strong disagreement with about 
his approach to the war--basically saying an American citizen has to be 
treated as a common criminal, not an enemy combatant, for collaborating 
with the enemy--we have our differences, but I have removed my 
objection to his amendment with the understanding that I get a vote on 
my amendment--the Heitkamp amendment--about the Ex-Im Bank, where 
thousands of jobs are being lost. I want to put on the record that I am 
ready to let Senator Reed move forward if we can get a vote on Ex-Im 
Bank, where thousands of jobs are at stake.
  But we are not voting on any of this. The managers' package is not 
being voted on. So this is a low point right now. There is very serious 
business that is being conducted in the Senate that can't move forward 
because individuals have decided: If I can't have everything I want, 
nobody is going to get anything.
  The bottom line is, the managers' package should move forward. There 
are a lot of good things in that package. There is a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution in that package, coauthored by Senator Jack Reed and 
me, urging President Obama to keep the 9,800 American troops in 
Afghanistan until conditions warrant their withdrawal; that if he 
decides to keep the force in place, we support him; if we go to 5,500, 
Afghanistan is going to fall apart. That is a really big statement in a 
bipartisan fashion.
  As to what happened in Orlando and why it is so important, I have 
been trying to fight a war, not a crime. For years now, I have been 
suggesting that the difference between a war and a crime is important. 
The FBI closed the file on this man because they didn't have enough 
evidence to charge him with a crime. My goal is to prevent terrorist 
attacks, not respond to them.
  Here is the world I would like to construct; that if by your 
actions--not by being a Muslim or being this or being that--if by the 
way you behave and the way you act and the way you talk and the way you 
engage, you should be treated differently. If you are expressing 
sympathy to ISIL and other radical Islamic groups, if you threaten your 
coworkers, telling them that your family is a member of Al Qaeda, if 
you are associated with a known terrorist and you attend a mosque that 
is trying to radicalize people, the FBI should never close the file 
until they are sure you are not a threat, in terms of attacking our 
homeland. That is the difference between fighting a war and fighting a 
crime. I am trying to prevent the next attack, not respond to it.
  This is not a gun control issue, folks. If gun control could protect 
the country from attacks by radical Islamists, there would be no Paris. 
The French have the strongest gun laws on the planet and over 100 
French citizens died at the hands of Islamists using weapons: bombs, 
planes, guns. It is not the instrumentality, it is the attitude. So 
this is not a gun control problem. We are at war and we are treating it 
like a crime.
  On the Republican side, this is not about banning all Muslims. This 
man was an American citizen born in Queens. This idea of shutting 
America off to everybody in the Muslim faith makes it harder to win the 
war, not easier. We need partners in the faith to destroy radical 
Islam. It is through that partnership that we will make America safe. 
So when people call for gun control, you don't understand what is going 
on here. This is not a gun control issue. If it were, there would be no 
attacks in Europe. This is a radical Islamic effort--sometimes 
individually, sometimes collectively--to break our will, destroy our 
way of life, and we are not dealing with it sufficiently. We should 
have an approach to this problem as though we are at war. We should 
follow people who are sympathetic to the enemy, monitor their behavior 
to prevent what happened in Florida, gather intelligence. We should 
never close a file against a suspected sympathizer to ISIL because we 
can't prove a crime. We should keep the file open as long as they are a 
threat.
  I appreciate all Senator McCain has done to strengthen the military. 
To those who voted against increasing military spending by $18 billion 
at a time that the military is being gutted, you made a huge mistake. 
If you want to deal with radical Islam, destroy it over there before it 
continues to come here, and to do that we need a stronger military. Our 
Navy and Army are going to be the size of 1940 and 1950, respectively. 
We are cutting the Marine Corps. We are cutting our ability to defend 
ourselves, and this $18 billion amendment would restore money to help 
the military more effectively deal with radical Islam over there so we 
don't have to fight it here.
  To those who look at this as a gun control issue, you are missing the 
point. To those who think we should not restore spending, you are not 
listening to our commanders. Our commanders are begging for more money 
to more effectively support the force in a struggle we can't afford to 
lose. To those who think we should declare war on the Islamic faith 
itself, you have no idea how dangerous that model is. To those who want 
to close a file because we can't prove a crime when we know the person 
we are looking at has weird, strange beliefs and is actually acting on 
these beliefs, then you are making a huge mistake.
  Until America gets our attitude adjusted, until we change our 
policies, until we restore our ability to defend ourselves, this is 
going to continue.
  The President continues to marginalize this, downplaying the threats. 
This was directed. I don't have any idea that al-Baghdadi called this 
guy up and said: Go to a night club and shoot on this day, but I know 
al-

[[Page 8645]]

Baghdadi has called on everybody sympathetic to his cause to attack 
during the holy month of Ramadan; attack in place, don't come to Syria. 
So that is a direction.
  It was clear to me, this man had been interviewed on three separate 
occasions by the FBI, that he was expressing sympathy and allegiance to 
radical Islam, and that he was associated with a man who went from 
Florida to Syria, back to Florida, back to Syria, who became a suicide 
bomber for al-Nusra. There is no way in hell this file should have ever 
been closed because of political correctness. It should have stayed 
open until we were sure he was not a threat to us. The goal is to 
prevent these things, not react to them.
  I want to tell you right now that the things we are not talking about 
in this bill and we can't vote on in this bill are making us less safe. 
Not allowing these Afghan interpreters--who have risked their lives to 
protect us by helping us over there--to come to America in larger 
numbers is going to make it harder to have partners. By insisting that 
these budget cuts stay in place and not increasing military spending at 
a time of desperate need is a huge mistake. To my friends on the left 
and the Libertarians who want to turn the war into crime, it is the 
biggest mistake of all.
  So this is very sad that the U.S. Senate seems to not be able to 
adjust to the reality that exists and that we all have our petty 
grievances and we can't move forward as one to strengthen the military, 
to give our intelligence community the tools they need to protect us, 
and to have a game plan to win a war we can't afford to lose. In my 
opinion, we are not having votes that are very important, for no good 
reason, and this will come back to haunt us.
  Last week--and I will end with this--Senator McCain and I were 
talking about the threats we face. I have been trying the best I can to 
articulate the difference between fighting a crime and fighting a war. 
I know what the enemy wants. They want to destroy our way of life and 
everything we hold near and dear. They want to kill anything that is 
different. They want everything that America refuses to give them. We 
are never going to give them what they want, which is the ability to be 
yourself, the ability to worship God the way you choose, if at all, the 
ability to be different, the ability to speak your mind and to elect 
your leaders. That is what they want. We can't afford to give it to 
them, and we don't have the right attitude or the policies to end a 
war. It will end one day. People are not buying what radical Islam is 
selling within the faith. But the longer it goes on, the more 
endangered we are, and our policies are not working. I am trying my 
best to change them in a responsible way, consistent with our 
Constitution, consistent with our values.
  I find myself on the floor of the Senate 48 hours after the largest 
attack since 9/11 unable to move forward on things that matter.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, section 578 of this year's National 
Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, is an inappropriate place from which 
to impose mandates on nearly 20,000 public elementary and secondary 
schools in 1,225 public school districts across the country.
  Legislative language is included in the NDAA this year that dictates 
disruptive policies on public schools that would create a complicated 
and confusing system where one school system follows established 
background checks under State or local law, while a neighboring county 
must now comply with a new unfunded Federal mandate. This language 
should not be included in the final version of this bill.
  The U.S. Senate takes seriously the goal of ensuring the safety of 
the more than 50 million children in our 100,000 public schools, 
including federally connected children. These issues have been and 
should be discussed, debated, and legislated within the appropriate 
committees of jurisdiction. Measures related to education are within 
the jurisdiction of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions 
Committee under Rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, as well 
as within the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Education and the 
Workforce under Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives for 
the 114th Congress.
  So while it may be appropriate for the Armed Services Committee to 
dictate background check policies for the 172 schools operated by the 
Department of Defense, it is not appropriate to use the authorization 
bill for the Department of Defense to impose mandates on nearly 20,000 
public elementary and secondary schools in 1,225 public school 
districts across the country.
  These 20,000 public schools, out of 100,000 total, are being singled 
out because they receive ``Impact Aid'' funds from the Federal 
Government under title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act, ESEA, of 1965. The purpose of the program is to ``fulfill the 
Federal responsibility to assist with the provision of educational 
services to federally connected children in a manner that promotes 
control by local educational agencies with little or no Federal or 
State involvement.''
  According to the Government Accountability Office, 46 States already 
require background checks of some kind for all public school employees, 
and 42 States have established professional standards or codes of 
conduct for school personnel. Section 578 of the NDAA would create 
confusion for all those States and localities, as they are forced to 
navigate two sets of potentially conflicting background checks 
policies.
  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, today I wish to speak about the fiscal 
year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA. I want to thank 
Senator McCain and Senator Reed for all their work on this Defense 
bill. This year's floor process has been challenging to say the least, 
but with their leadership and that of their staff directors, Chris 
Brose and Liz King, I am confident we can find a meaningful path 
forward.
  I supported this bill out of committee in hopes of having a vigorous 
debate on some of the proposals I had expressed concern over regarding 
Defense reform. It was my belief that the public release of this bill 
would invite greater scrutiny by officials in the Department of Defense 
to inform floor debate. In anticipation of their concern, I again 
submitted an amendment that I had offered in committee to initiate a 
commission on Defense reform to assist Congress in considering future 
legislation. I have been surprised at the absence of comments about 
many of the reform proposals. This has contributed to a sense that the 
concepts were welcome and being embraced by the Department. It wasn't 
until the administration's response was released, in the midst of the 
bill being on the Senate floor, that concern was finally noted.
  Despite my belief that some of our proposals lack sufficient analysis 
and have gone too far, I do share the chairman's concern over whether 
the Department has the ability to adapt and remain successful in 
today's security environment. I am also concerned that the Department 
may in fact be mired in duplicative process and complicated 
organizational designs. Many of the witnesses in front of the Armed 
Services Committee testified to these facts, but several went on to 
recommend caution.
  On November 10, 2015 in front of a hearing by this committee, Jim 
Thomas from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Analysis said, ``all 
of these ideas would require detailed analysis to fully understand 
their strengths and avoid outcomes that might inadvertently leave us 
worse off.'' At that same hearing, we heard from James Locher, a former 
staff member of the Senate Armed Services Committee during the 
Goldwater-Nichols reform, who stated ``pinpointing problems was the 
committee's sole focus for eighteen months. As part of this thorough 
process, the committee staff produced a 645-page staff study with 
detailed analyses of each problem area. . . . a hasty reform without a 
deep appreciation for the origins of the behaviors that currently limit 
Pentagon effectiveness would be a mistake.'' Additional comments by 
witnesses like the Honorable David Walker, ``there needs to be a 
fundamental review and reassessment of the current organizational 
structure and personnel practices,'' or former Under Secretary of 
Defense Michele

[[Page 8646]]

Flournoy, ``it is imperative that we think through the second and third 
order effects of any changes proposed. . . . great care should be taken 
to hear the full range of views and consider the unintended 
consequences,'' should have provided the necessary direction and 
caution to this committee to pursue a deliberative, well-researched, 
and open approach.
  Many of the reform provisions were drafted by the committee's very 
skilled professional staff. While I have the full confidence that they 
crafted proposals to address various challenges in the Department, it 
is ultimately the responsibility of the members to fully understand 
them. Despite the numerous hearings and countless witnesses, the only 
theme that emerged was that reform was needed interspersed with a few 
conceptual suggestions. To date, no study has proposed the legislation 
contained within this bill. No officials offered their views for 
consideration until the bill was on the Senate floor.
  In the absence of a debate on the merits of an independent study, 
investigative work, or official Department views, I suspect many of my 
colleagues do not have confidence that the proposals address the 
Department's challenges. Should we require the chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs to consult with and seek the advice of others? Should the 
headquarters be reduced in addition to previous reductions? Is an 
additional 15 percent of staff adequate in a time of war or crisis? 
Will the new Under Secretary for Research and Engineering make the 
Department's acquisition process run more efficiently? Last year we 
removed a pay increase for general officers; this year, we reduced 
their number by 25 percent. The combination of these two provisions 
makes me wonder whether we are doing all we can to cultivate the next 
Eisenhower, Halsey, Abrams, or Dunford.
  We made significant reforms in previous years empowering acquisition 
professionals to have flexibility and offer service chiefs greater 
ownership of their acquisition programs. We have also charged the 
Department with necessary authorities to ``hire top talent'' in an 
attempt to drive innovation. Many of us in the Senate have demanded a 
more comprehensive military strategy in countering the myriad of 
threats around the globe. In addition, this bill encourages numerous 
outreach and coordination programs with our allies and partners. These 
requests are not hollow or zero-sum. People are required to assist our 
service chiefs with acquisition programs. People develop more 
comprehensive doctrines and offset strategies. Hiring and retaining 
top-talent means just that.
  What impact will the reorganization of the Department and significant 
changes in personnel policies have on our operations in the midst of a 
two-front cold war and expanding conflict in the Middle East? Do we 
challenge the advice our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is providing? How 
do we get ``top talent'' if each spring we reorganize and cut our 
Department of Defense workforce? How will a reduction in general and 
flag officers impact current and future senior officers? What are the 
secondary effects to changes in combatant command responsibilities? How 
will our allies and adversaries interpret the reduction or 
disappearance of general officers in overseas billets? I submit that 
most of my colleagues do not know the answers to these questions, but I 
would encourage them to consider them prior to taking similar drastic 
action in the future.
  I share the chairman's desire to improve the organization and 
capability of the Department of Defense. I know he has reached a 
comfort level with the reform proposals contained within, that in time 
I may better understand their impacts. However, I am mindful of the 
cautions relayed by many of our witnesses. We should take our 
independent oversight responsibility very seriously. I remain committed 
to working with my colleagues in a bipartisan fashion and seek a more 
measured and informed approach to any legislation that has the 
potential to negatively impact the very Department we seek to improve. 
It is in this spirit that I offered my amendment on establishing a 
commission to study Defense reform.
  Mr. DAINES. Madam President, I wish to enter into a colloquy with my 
colleague from Arizona.
  The National Defense Authorization Act is the most critical piece of 
legislation for our national security that we debate each year, and I 
thank my colleague from Arizona, the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, for his hard work on this legislation.
  One important provision that should be in the final NDAA is the 
elevation of Cyber Command. Cyber warfare is taking place every day. It 
is a domain of war that our Nation must dominate just as we do on land, 
at sea, and in the air. At the rate electronic warfare is growing, I 
believe elevating Cyber Command to a combatant command is vital to 
ensuring that the United States is fully prepared for cyber warfare and 
has unparalleled capabilities in that domain.
  Does my colleague from Arizona feel the same?
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I strongly agree with my friend from 
Montana.
  Elevating Cyber Command is one of the most critical pieces to 
ensuring our Nation is at the forefront of the rising threats abroad. 
Earlier this year in the Armed Services Committee, I held a hearing on 
Cyber Command. I was told by the commander of Cyber Command, ADM Mike 
Rodgers, that this elevation would make them faster, generating better 
mission outcomes. These are the individuals we have leading the fight 
against ISIS on the newly established online battlefield--better 
mission outcomes is something we need.
  At a time when we are also debating what the entire combatant command 
structure should look like, one thing is clear: Cyber is growing, and 
its command structure needs to grow as well. I look forward to ensuring 
this debate is settled in conference and Cyber Command is elevated to a 
combatant command.
  Does my colleague from Montana agree?
  Mr. DAINES. Madam President, I do share my colleague from Arizona's 
commitment to elevate Cyber Command to a combatant command in 
conference. The House NDAA includes a provision to elevate Cyber 
Command, and I stand with eight bipartisan Members of the Senate, 
including my colleague from Arizona, who support this effort. It is 
paramount that the final fiscal year 2017 NDAA that goes to the 
President's desk includes this provision.
  Can my colleague from Arizona further describe the value that 
elevating Cyber Command would bring?
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, for years, our enemies have been setting 
the norms of behavior in cyber space while the White House sat idly by 
hoping the problem will fix itself. With the elevation of Cyber 
Command, we are able to ensure we set ourselves on the right course for 
this new form of warfare. And we will do it without creating a hollow 
force. Just as it would be unacceptable to send a soldier to battle 
without a rifle, it is unacceptable to deprive our cyber forces the 
basic tools they need to execute their missions. We must remain 
committed to ensuring Cyber Command has the authority, the funding, and 
the tools it needs to succeed.
  I look forward to the continued work on this issue with my colleague 
from Montana and to working in conference to ensure this elevation. I 
understand my colleague from Montana has ensured the Defense 
appropriations legislation complements our efforts in cyber command.
  Can you elaborate on your efforts?
  Mr. DAINES. My colleague from Arizona is correct. My provisions in 
the Defense appropriations legislation states that the Department of 
Defense has the funding needed to elevate Cyber Command to a combatant 
command this year. We cannot wait for our enemies to outmaneuver us on 
this new battlefield. Elevating Cyber Command to a combatant command is 
one of the best ways we can ensure our troops have the authority they 
need to succeed.
  I want to thank my colleague from Arizona for his commitment to a 
continued effort on the elevation of Cyber

[[Page 8647]]

Command and thank him for his continued hard work on behalf of the men 
and women of our Armed Forces.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, if we can get consent, and individual 
Senators will relinquish their objections, the Senate is ready to vote 
on the Shaheen amendment on special immigrant visas for Afghan 
interpreters, which will save lives, the Moran amendment on Guantanamo, 
the Gillibrand amendment on the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the 
Murray amendment on cryopreservation of eggs and sperm, the Corker 
amendment to authorize the activities of the State Department. We are 
ready to debate and vote on all of those.
  So I hope that if there is objection, the Senators involved will 
relinquish their objections so we can move forward with those 
amendments and have final passage.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be 
in order to offer amendment No. 4310, notwithstanding rule XXII, and 
the Senate vote in relation to the amendment; and that the amendment be 
subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold, with no second-degree 
amendments in order prior to the vote.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, with the greatest reluctance, I object 
on behalf of one Member on this side. I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, could I also say, as I object--reserving 
the right to object--the Gillibrand amendment, I do not support, but 
the Gillibrand amendment deserves debate and a vote in this body. It is 
a serious issue of the utmost seriousness in the military. The Chair 
certainly understands that. It has to do with sexual assaults in the 
military, and it deserves the attention of the entire U.S. Senate--
debate and vote. Unfortunately, there is objection.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I rise to speak about the 
amendment.
  Under our current military justice system, when a servicemember is 
accused of sexual assault, the decision to prosecute isn't actually 
made by a trained prosecutor or a lawyer of any kind. In fact, it is 
made by a colonel or a brigadier general or another high-ranking 
military officer.
  Our commanders are the best in the world when it comes to tactics and 
strategy, but most of them have little to no experience in legal or 
criminal matters. And why should they have that experience? Our 
commanders are not prosecutors. They are not lawyers. They are 
warfighters, and their job is to keep our country safe, not make legal 
judgments about whether to prosecute a rape.
  The current military justice system has failed our sexual assault 
survivors for too long.
  This amendment very simply takes the decision about whether to 
prosecute these crimes and gives it to trained, experienced, 
independent military prosecutors.
  We have all the evidence we need that this problem has not gotten 
better in the last year. We have more data. We have looked at more case 
files. We have heard from more survivors. It is clear little has 
changed, despite the Department's persistent claims that things are 
getting better, that they are making progress.
  When the Department of Defense estimates that there are 20,000 
servicemembers who are sexually assaulted in a year, that is not 
progress. When 8 out of every 10 military sexual assault survivors 
don't report the crime, that is not progress. When 62 percent of 
survivors are being retaliated against, that is not progress. When more 
than half of those retaliation cases--58 percent of them--are 
perpetrated by someone in the chain of command, that is not progress. 
When the percentage of survivors willing to report openly has declined 
for the past 5 years, that is not progress. When it was confirmed by 
the Associated Press that the Pentagon blatantly misled the Senate in 
order to skew our debate, that is perhaps the ultimate sign that there 
has been no progress.
  Our military justice system is broken. It is failing our members. And 
no matter how many marginal reforms we make, as long as commanders with 
no legal experience are continuing to make important legal decisions on 
whether to prosecute violent sex crimes, we are not going to solve the 
problem. Once and for all, let's take the decision to prosecute these 
crimes and give it to trained, independent military prosecutors. Let's 
give our military servicemembers a justice system that is worthy of 
their service.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, we have cleared the following amendments 
to go by voice vote on this side. I understand there are objections on 
the other side to this list. I want the record to reflect what is on 
the table from this side. I dislike getting into this back-and-forth 
because it really serves no purpose, but I ask unanimous consent that 
the managers' package as portrayed here be printed in the Record.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the printing?
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

       4604, Shaheen; 4141, Corker; 4070, Moran; 4444, Murray; 
     4090, Burr; 4123, Blumenthal, as modified; 4362, Brown; 4142, 
     Nelson; 4216, Booker; 4392, Cantwell; 4421, Warner; 4461, 
     Manchin; 4426, Boxer; 4596, Wyden; 4297, Donnelly; 4321, 
     Schatz; 4416, Kaine; 4389, Udall; 4431, Schumer; 4527, Casey; 
     4210, Tester; 4591, Reed; 4678, Reid; 4675, Bennet; 4564, 
     Carper; 4232, Heller; 4376, McCain; 4094, Inhofe; 4195, 
     Rubio; 4243, Portman.
       4263, Gardner; 4316, Rounds; 4449, Barrasso; 4136, Hoeven; 
     4265, Cochran; 4478, Hoeven; 4096, McCain; 4418, Perdue; 
     4424, Moran; 4500, Johnson; 4399, Daines; 4622, Flake; 4400, 
     McCain; 4377, Hatch; 4155, Boozman; 4242, Peters; 4348, 
     Baldwin; 4372, Nelson; 4427, Boxer; 4428, Boxer; 4443, 
     Murray; 4453, Heinrich; 4471, Peters; 4528, McCaskill; 4577, 
     Schatz.
       4583, Warner; 4584, Tester; 4589, Heinrich; 4602, Udall; 
     4630, Brown; 4631, Peters; 4635, Brown; 4642, Booker; 4073, 
     Paul; 4128, McCain; 4214, Kirk; 4419, Wicker; 4465, Johnson; 
     4552, Perdue; 4555, Lankford; 4587, Collins; 4601, Rubio; 
     4617, Portman; 4619, Inhofe; 4620, Ernst; 4638, Kirk; 4666, 
     Murkowski.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.


                        Mass Shooting in Orlando

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I want to start by offering my 
condolences to the families and loved ones of the victims of Sunday's 
heinous attack in the city of Orlando and to everyone who was affected 
by this terrible tragedy and act of terror.
  While our hearts are with the families and the communities right now, 
in the coming days we should have a robust debate about how we can all 
come together to do everything possible to prevent tragedies like that 
from happening again.
  Madam President, I want to turn to the bill we are considering today, 
the National Defense Authorization Act, which has been described as one 
that will modernize the military health system and give the men and 
women of our military better quality care, better access, and a better 
experience. It has been described as upholding commitments to our 
servicemembers. I wish I could stand here and say that I agree with 
that 100 percent, but there is a glaring problem in this bill. It is a 
problem that really cuts against the idea that our country should be 
there for the men and women of our military, who risk so much on our 
behalf, no matter what.
  Go to page 1,455 of this massive bill. Buried in a funding chart, 
there is one line that would zero out a new program intended to help 
men and women in our military who suffer catastrophic injuries while 
fighting on our behalf. I don't know how this line got in there. I 
don't know who thought it was a good idea. I don't know why, but I do 
know what this is: It is absolutely wrong, and we ought to fix it. That 
is why I have come to the Senate floor repeatedly over the past week to 
urge my colleagues to correct this shameful

[[Page 8648]]

change, and with the clock running down on this bill, now is the time 
to act.
  Let me give this some context. Six months ago the Pentagon announced 
a pilot program to offer our servicemembers who are getting ready to 
deploy an opportunity at cryopreservation; in other words, freezing 
their eggs or sperm. It gave deploying servicemembers not just the 
ability to have reproductive options in the event they are grievously 
injured but some deserved peace of mind. It meant they don't have to 
worry about choosing between defending their country or a chance at 
having a family someday. This new program was met with widespread 
praise and relief. It reflected a basic level of respect for 
servicemembers who are willing to risk suffering catastrophic injuries 
on our behalf.
  I was hoping this new program was a step we could build on, a move in 
the right direction, an important part of our larger work to help our 
warriors who have sustained grievous injuries achieve their dream of 
starting a family. That is why I was so disturbed when I learned this 
bill would move us in the other way.
  Despite what some of my colleagues have been saying, my amendment 
very deliberately states that it will not divert money from any other 
important health programs.
  I am here again today to ask unanimous consent to have a vote on my 
amendment that would restore this pilot program. It is hard to imagine 
any of my colleagues standing up to say that men and women who are 
willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country and for all of 
us should be denied a shot at their dream of a family. I am hopeful we 
can have a vote on this, and I encourage my colleagues to support it 
and step away from what would be a truly shameful mistake.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to offer 
amendment No. 4490, relating to fertility treatments, and that the 
Senate vote in relation to the amendment, with no second-degree 
amendments in order prior to the vote.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, with reluctance--and I apologize to the 
Senator from Washington. This is another amendment that deserves debate 
and a vote.
  Another amendment that has not been brought up that deserves debate 
and a vote is the issue of women being registered for Selective 
Service. I want to make it very clear that I have wanted and this body 
wanted a vote on whether women should be registered for Selective 
Service, and it was not allowed--not by this individual but only one.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Indiana be recognized, 
in addition to my time, for 3 minutes----
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the pending 
request?
  Mr. McCAIN. And that the 3 minutes be taken out of Senator Reed's 
time, to the Senator from Indiana.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Is there objection to my request?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the pending 
request?
  Mr. McCAIN. I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Is there objection to the request from the Senator from Arizona?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 4670, as Modified

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to modify the 
Nelson amendment No. 4670 with the changes at the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 1, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

     SEC. 829B. COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT AND PHASE OUT OF ROCKET 
                   ENGINES FROM THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION IN THE 
                   EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAM FOR 
                   SPACE LAUNCH OF NATIONAL SECURITY SATELLITES.

       (a) Ineffectiveness of Superseded Requirements.--Sections 
     1036 and 1037 shall have no force or effect, and the 
     amendments proposed to be made by section 1037 shall not be 
     made.
       (b) In General.--Any competition for a contract for the 
     provision of launch services for the evolved expendable 
     launch vehicle program shall be open for award to all 
     certified providers of evolved expendable launch vehicle-
     class systems.
       (c) Award of Contracts.--In awarding a contract under 
     subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense--
       (1) subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), and notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, may, during the period beginning 
     on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on 
     December 31, 2022, award the contract to a provider of launch 
     services that intends to use any certified launch vehicle in 
     its inventory without regard to the country of origin of the 
     rocket engine that will be used on that launch vehicle; and
       (2) may award contracts utilizing an engine designed or 
     manufactured in the Russian Federation for only phase 1(a) 
     and phase 2 evolved expendable launch vehicle procurements.
       (3) Limitation.--The total number of rocket engines 
     designed or manufactured in the Russian Federation and used 
     on launch vehicles for the evolved expendable launch vehicle 
     program shall not exceed 18.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, I will try to be very brief. I know time 
is constricted.
  When I first came to the Senate, we had Members on both sides who had 
principled positions on any number of issues, but we rarely, if ever, 
because of our principled stand, denied the opportunity for debate and 
vote. The Senate is here for the purpose of debating and voting. 
Sometimes we win, and sometimes we lose. The consequences are recorded, 
and the bill goes forward--as this one would--to be combined with the 
House, to go to conference, and finally issue a resolution.
  We are not talking about just any piece of legislation here; we are 
talking about the national security and national defense for our 
Nation. There are important issues that need to be debated and need to 
be voted on. Yet we are denied that opportunity. Someone on our side 
was denied that opportunity. The other side has every right to say: 
Well, if you are going to play that game, we are going to play that 
game. That is not how the Senate should operate.
  The Senator from New York and the Senator from Washington on the 
Democratic side have principled amendments. I don't support the 
amendment from the Senator from New York, but it ought to be debated 
and it ought to be voted on and it ought to be worked through. That is 
why we are sent here. No wonder the public across the Nation is so 
frustrated with us--because we are in total stalemate.
  Senator McCain and Senator Reed have made every possible effort to 
move this process forward. Yet here we are. As we know, under the 
procedures, one person has the right to stop anything from going 
forward if they use those procedures, and that has happened. It is very 
unfortunate.
  In comparison to my time here earlier when we functioned as the U.S. 
Senate, we are in total dysfunction because people are not willing to 
go forward and debate and accept the fact that they win or they lose 
but the process goes forward.
  I thank my colleague from Arizona and colleague from Rhode Island for 
the opportunity to speak, and I yield back.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to use 1 minute 
of debate time from the Democratic side.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I would like to say that my friend from Indiana, who has 
been a Member of this body for many years and has served in a variety 
of functions for this Nation, is exactly right. We are now in a 
situation where, because someone doesn't get a vote on their amendment, 
everybody else's amendment is not agreed to. That is not the way the 
Senate was intended to function. That is not the way the Senate should 
function.

[[Page 8649]]

  We just heard of two amendments that I strongly object to--both of 
them--but I want debate and votes on them. Unfortunately, we now have a 
situation, frankly, on both sides where unless people get their 
amendment, nobody gets their amendment.
  We are now, among other things, putting the lives of the interpreters 
who have served this Nation and saved American lives in danger by 
refusing to take up the Shaheen amendment, which allows some of these 
people to come to the United States of America. When some of them start 
dying, my friends--and they will, because they get the night letters 
that they are going to be assassinated, they and their families--I hope 
they understand what is at stake here, and I certainly wouldn't want 
that on my conscience.
  In addition to my friend Lindsey Graham's comments about Paris--and 
we will have plenty of time to talk about it--my favorite quote of all 
that epitomizes the failure of this President is from January 2014: 
``The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think it is accurate, 
is if a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn't make them Kobe 
Bryant.'' My friends, that statement will live in infamy. That will go 
down with ``peace in our time.'' ``If a JV team puts on Lakers 
uniforms, that doesn't make them Kobe Bryant.'' ISIS is the same as a 
JV team putting on a Lakers uniform. There has been nothing that I know 
of more revealing of the attitude and policies of this administration, 
which is directly responsible, in my view, for the ultimate conclusion 
of what happened in Orlando.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I am once again on the Senate floor in a 
series of conversations we have had with my colleagues about the 
importance of my amendment I would like pending to this national 
defense authorization bill.
  I am discouraged and disappointed that over the weekend no resolution 
on a variety of issues has been reached, and therefore there would be 
objection once again if I offered this amendment.
  What I am attempting to do and what we have talked about so many 
times here on the floor and in the hallways of Congress is that Kansans 
generally are opposed to the closing of Guantanamo Bay as a detention 
facility and particularly opposed to bringing these detainees to the 
United States and especially opposed to bringing the detainees to Fort 
Leavenworth, KS. Unfortunately, this bill includes an amendment offered 
in committee that allows for the design and planning and construction 
of a facility, and my amendment is the simple removal of those 
provisions from this legislation.
  It is clear to me that throughout the entire time of the 
administration of this President, this administration has been unable 
to provide any cohesive, comprehensive, legally justifiable closure and 
relocation plan. Yet this plan authorizes the planning and design.
  So I rise to once again express my dissatisfaction and anger with the 
Senate for its inability to do its job. Whether or not my amendment 
would prevail at the moment is not the issue; it is whether or not 
there can even be a vote on what I consider to be a very important 
issue to Kansas and to the country.
  I appreciate the efforts by the chairman of the committee, who has 
assured me that he supports this amendment, and through no fault of his 
own, we are unable to take a vote to demonstrate that support in the 
Senate.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I say to the Senator from Kansas, we had 
an agreement to have this taken by voice vote, just as we had an 
agreement to take up the Shaheen amendment as well, with overwhelming 
support in the Senate to save the lives of these interpreters. 
Unfortunately, one or two individual Senators blocked any progress on 
that.
  I want to assure the Senator from Kansas that we will do what is 
necessary to ensure that this amendment is enacted into law.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional 
minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I wish to underscore what the chairman has 
said. We worked very closely with Senator Moran, Senator Shaheen, and 
many others, including Senator Gillibrand and Senator Murray, to come 
up with a package.
  As the chairman announced previously, if this package had moved, it 
would have also unlocked numerous other amendments that we had cleared 
on both sides. But, unfortunately, because of the objection of an 
individual whom the chairman has cited, we are now coming to final 
passage.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, all 
postcloture time on S. 2943 has expired.


                Vote on Amendment No. 4670, as Modified

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to 
amendment No. 4670, as modified, offered by the Senator from Florida, 
Mr. Nelson.
  Is there any further debate on the amendment?
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the Nelson amendment No. 4670, as 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 4670), as modified, was agreed to.


                 Vote on Amendment No. 4607, as Amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
4607, as amended, offered by the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain.
  Is there any further debate?
  The amendment (No. 4607), as amended, was agreed to.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall it pass?
  Mr. COATS. Mr. 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 California (Mrs. Boxer) 
and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 85, nays 13, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 98 Leg.]

                                YEAS--85

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker

                                NAYS--13

     Crapo
     Cruz
     Gillibrand
     Leahy
     Lee
     Markey
     Merkley

[[Page 8650]]


     Paul
     Reid
     Risch
     Sasse
     Warren
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Boxer
     Sanders
       
  The bill (S. 2943), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill, as amended, will be printed in a future edition of the 
Record.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.

                          ____________________