[Pages S7079-S7085]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CLARIFYING JURISDICTION WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 
                       PUMPED STORAGE DEVELOPMENT

  The bill (H.R. 1607) to clarify jurisdiction with respect to certain 
Bureau of Reclamation pumped storage development, and for other 
purposes, was ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and 
passed.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first, I want to thank Senator Cassidy for 
his cooperation in putting together this package. It is a package of 
bills that were favorably considered by the committee. They are 
noncontroversial. I want to thank also Senator Kelly for his help in 
putting together this package.
  Let me just, if I might, talk about two of the issues we just passed: 
First, H.R. 6826, to designate the visitor and education center at Fort 
McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine as the Paul S. Sarbanes 
Visitor and Education Center.
  I want to first acknowledge Congressman Sarbanes, who is on the 
floor, who has represented me so well in the House of Representatives. 
He has also decided not to run for reelection and served for 18 years 
in the House of Representatives.

[[Page S7080]]

  Mr. President, I hold the Sarbanes seat in the U.S. Senate. Paul 
Sarbanes was a dear friend. He was a Senator's Senator. He was deeply 
respected by all Members of this body. I think it is particularly 
appropriate that he is honored with the naming of the Fort McHenry 
National Monument and Historic Shrine visitor center and education 
center.
  The late Paul Sarbanes was a tireless advocate to preserve Fort 
McHenry in Baltimore, MD. Senator Sarbanes worked to honor the site and 
elevate the history of the War of 1812 in the national consciousness 
throughout his career.
  I got to know Senator Sarbanes when we were both elected at the same 
time to the Maryland House of Delegates many years ago. He would go on 
to serve in the House of Representatives on the Judiciary Committee, 
which was given the responsibility of the first Article of Impeachment 
against President Nixon during the Watergate scandal.
  Later, while serving in the Senate in the aftermath of the 2002 Enron 
scandal, Sarbanes worked in a bipartisan manner to pass the Sarbanes-
Oxley legislation. Then-President George W. Bush called the Sarbanes-
Oxley bill ``the most far-reaching reforms of American business 
practices since the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.''
  He had a long and distinguished career of public service to the 
Nation, and, throughout, he never forgot his Baltimore roots. He saw 
Fort McHenry as a national treasure in the city and a site worth 
celebrating. This legislation acknowledges his long-term advocacy for 
the preservation of the site and the improvement of the visitor 
experience by designating the visitor and education center the Paul S. 
Sarbanes Visitor and Education Center. It is a fitting tribute to name 
the visitor center at Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic 
Shrine after a true American hero: Paul S. Sarbanes.
  Mr. President, I also would like to call my colleagues' attention to 
H.R. 1727, the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park 
Commission Extension Act, which we just approved.
  I am proud to have worked together with Representative Trone and 
Senators Capito, Van Hollen, Manchin, Warner, and Kaine on this 
legislation. The C&O Canal National Historic Park is 184.5 miles long 
and covers 20,000 acres, winding north and west along the Potomac 
River, from the heart of Washington, DC, to Cumberland, MD. The park 
includes a canal and contiguous towpath that provides runners, 
cyclists, and backpackers access to hundreds of historic structures 
that tell a story of this critical economic artery.
  The Advisory Commission was established in 1971, and it has been 
reauthorized at nominal cost by Congress every 10 years for the past 
three decades with overwhelming bipartisan support. There is no better 
wealth of knowledge of the unique issues the C&O Canal and its 
resources face than the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical 
Park Advisory Commission. Government works better when policymakers 
listen to the people who know them best, and this commission ensures 
that all surrounding communities have a voice in shaping their future.
  I am proud to work together with my neighboring delegations to keep 
this commission running strong.
  So, Mr. President, once again, I want to thank my colleagues for 
their cooperation in getting this done, and I particularly want to 
acknowledge, as earlier, Representative John Sarbanes. He has worked 
his entire career on good governance, and there is no stronger need in 
our society than an advocate for good governance in our community. He 
has done a great job in the House of Representatives.
  He is also known for his work on the Chesapeake Bay, as the leader of 
No Child Left Inside, getting young people to understand the importance 
of Chesapeake Bay so we have advocates for the future. I congratulate 
John Sarbanes for his incredible record in the House of Representatives 
and wish him the best.
  I thank the Presiding Officer for the courtesies that were just 
extended.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise to support H.R. 6843, which is 
part of this package, the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area Boundary 
Remodification Act.
  I want to take just a moment to talk about the Atchafalaya. Le Grand 
Derangement--my French is off, but stay with me.
  When the British kicked the Acadians out of Canada and they migrated 
down to Louisiana and along the gulf coast, the Atchafalaya basin was 
where many of them settled, and their culture spread out from there. 
And if you think of our culture with the etouffee, the jambalaya, the 
crawfish, it all began in the Atchafalaya basin and built out from 
there.
  And if you look at a map, where the Mississippi comes down, draining 
most of the continental United States, and then the Red River comes 
down, which drains Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas--they meet, and the 
Atchafalaya is born.
  Prehistorically, the Atchafalaya River was an outlet for the 
Mississippi River. And if it were not for human engineering, it would 
once again be the outlet for the Mississippi. It is 1.4 million acres 
of swamps and wetlands and rivers--the largest wetlands in the United 
States.
  And I say this because this culture, this Acadian culture--one of the 
most unique, if not the most unique, in our country--began here. In our 
boundary modification, we extend the footprint of this, acknowledging 
that the Cajuns that came from Canada, finding refuge in the United 
States, putting a unique imprint--a unique imprint on our country.
  And I hesitate because I'm thinking. For example, Breaux Bridge, LA, 
has the crawfish capital of the world. Now, we are the only State, I am 
sure, that has the crawfish capital of the world.
  But to show where that goes, yesterday, I am at a truck stop in 
Arkansas, and I stop and they are selling crispy, crunchy chicken. And 
with the crispy, crunchy chicken, I can get a side. It is jambalaya, it 
is red beans and rice, and it is something else. I said: This is 
Louisiana day. The guy laughed. He goes: It sure is. So the food that 
began when those Acadians settled there has spread out.
  What this does is it expands that footprint. It allows more of a 
celebration of that culture, a preservation of the sportsmen's 
paradise. And along the way, it created a lot of jobs. It has support 
across Louisiana, including from the original 14 parishes within the 
national heritage area.
  So I thank my colleagues for getting this across the line. I am very 
pleased about it, and I look forward to the Atchafalaya National 
Heritage Area educating even more Americans as to the wonders of my 
State.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, this bipartisan bill, H.R. 1607, the pumped 
hydro storage bill, is about delivering affordable and reliable energy 
to our growing State by expanding hydropower storage.
  The way it does that is pretty simple. It clarifies the Bureau of 
Reclamation's jurisdiction with respect to the future development of 
pumped storage along the Salt River in Arizona, and it expands an 
existing withdrawal south of the river from 1 to 2 miles, allowing the 
Salt River Project to explore developing sites identified in a 2014 
Bureau of Reclamation study. This could ultimately bring upwards of 
2,000 megawatts of energy storage capacity to the State of Arizona, 
providing clean energy and improving grid reliability as the demand for 
energy grows in the coming years.
  Representatives Schweikert and Stanton introduced this bill in the 
House, and it passed the Chamber last year by a vote of 384 to 1. I 
appreciate the work of my colleagues on the Energy and National 
Resources Committee to ensure that our bill received a hearing and a 
markup.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.


   Reforming Emergency Powers to Uphold the Balances and Limitations 
                    Inherent in the Constitution Act

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, we are currently considering the Defense 
authorization bill. We have considered this most years annually for 
many decades. Typically, though, we will have a robust debate, we will 
have amendments offered, and we will try to have participation by 
Senators from all over the

[[Page S7081]]

United States geographically represented in the debate.
  That won't happen this year. There will be no debate. It will be very 
controlled and circumscribed, and there won't be amendments. This is 
disappointing to me because I think there are some very important 
issues that need to be brought up, and one of those is emergency 
powers.
  Our Founding Fathers understood that it was very important to divide 
these powers between the executive branch, the legislative branch, or 
the judiciary. Over the past hundred years though, we have had a 
gradual evolution of these powers toward the executive branch. And we 
now have a very, very strong executive branch that, in many ways, is 
able to control the narrative and ultimately to control the country.
  In the 1970s, Frank Church wrote these words, which I think represent 
a problem that existed then and even more so now. He wrote:

       Hundreds of statutes clothe the President with virtually 
     unchecked powers with which he can affect the lives of 
     American citizens in a host of all-encompassing ways. This 
     vast range of powers, taken together, confers enough 
     authority on the President to rule the country without 
     reference to normal constitutional processes.
       Under the authority delegated by these statutes, the 
     President may: seize property; organize and control the means 
     of production; seize commodities; institute martial law; 
     seize and control all transportation and communication; 
     regulate the operation of private enterprises; restrict 
     travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the 
     lives of all American citizens.

  These words were written by Senator Frank Church in a 1977 law review 
article, but they are still true to this day and even more worrisome.
  The Church Committee's investigatory work famously convinced many in 
Congress that the time had come to reassert congressional checks and 
balances on the Executive that had become all too powerful.
  It is ironic that the powers-that-be still conspire to this day to 
hide the work of the Church Committee. I have been trying for over a 
year to read the classified version of the Church Committee. All right. 
This is not some sort of new document; this is a document from 1976. 
But the powers-that-be have prevented me for over a year from reading 
the classified report. You got to wonder--does that mean they have 
something to hide or does that mean they love power so much that they 
don't want to share it?
  The National Emergencies Act of 1976 was supposed to be a reform of 
Presidential emergencies. It was supposed to limit the power of 
Presidents. In that act, they actually gave a legislative veto. If an 
emergency were invoked by a President and the majority of Congress 
voted it, they would be legislatively able to reject that emergency.
  The Court ultimately ruled, though, that that would have to be signed 
by the President, effectively meaning that if a President declares an 
emergency, a majority of us say ``We don't think that should be 
declared,'' and he vetoes it, it now takes two-thirds of us to overcome 
a Presidential emergency. This is a very high bar and makes it nearly 
impossible to stop a Presidential emergency.
  Essentially, the National Emergency's Act enforcement mechanism 
became toothless when the Court got rid of the legislative veto. 
Subsequently, Congress must muster this veto-proof or two-thirds vote. 
To thwart a rogue President, it currently takes a two-thirds majority 
vote in both Houses to overturn a veto. This is a very high bar. 
Consequently, we live in a country Frank Church would barely recognize.
  In some ways, the United States of America is a monarchy in disguise. 
The United States maintains the veneer of a constitutional republic but 
often operates as an elected monarchy in which the President exercises 
awesome and unchecked power by decree and in perpetuity.
  If you look at the emergencies on the books, some of them have been 
on the books for 50 years. If you look at the potential emergencies 
that could be declared, you would be shocked.
  This dangerous imbalance of the constitutional separation of powers 
is not simply aggrandizement by the executive branch; it is something 
that Congress has actually been complicit with. Congress has 
essentially made itself a feckless branch of the Federal Government by 
granting the President so many emergency powers and refusing to 
regularly vote on the termination of national emergencies, as required 
by current law. The emergencies go on and on.
  Our concern should not merely be to restore Congress to its proper 
role in our Madisonian system of government; rather, our true focus 
should be to restore the Founders' vision of a government of limited 
and diffuse powers that is devoted to securing our inalienable rights. 
A government that disperses power among separate, distinct, and 
competing branches is a government that is less likely to violate our 
liberties.
  We owe the people nothing less than the restoration of the 
constitutional principles of separation of powers and of checks and 
balances among the branches of the Federal Government.
  I have offered a significant step towards revivifying the Founders' 
vision. I have introduced a bill called the REPUBLIC Act, which is an 
amendment to this bill but likely will not be considered because the 
powers-that-be don't want debate or amendments. But this amendment, 
were it considered, would restore Congress's role in governance by 
requiring that declarations of national emergency expire after 30 days. 
The President would still have the power to declare an emergency, but 
it would expire after 30 days unless approved affirmatively by 
Congress. What this does is essentially switches the role we currently 
have. Currently, it takes two-thirds of Congress to stop an emergency; 
now it would take 50 percent of Congress to affirm an emergency.
  We did this in my State for our Governor. It is a good reform and 
goes a long way towards restoring the faith that people have in the 
separation of powers and the limitation of powers.
  This simple reform allows the President to respond to genuine crises 
but ensures that the Executive cannot rule by unchecked perpetual 
emergency.
  My bill includes other reforms that are designed to safeguard the 
country from emergency rule. My bill would repeal the provisions of the 
Communications Act of 1934--also known as the internet kill switch--
that allow the President, if he declares an emergency, to take over all 
communications.
  Now, this emergency fortunately has never been declared, but simply 
having this on the book for so long is a threat that someday a 
President might occur who says: I am going to take over all 
communications, and I will shut them down. That is a power so ominous, 
no President of either party should ever have that power, and this bill 
would remove that power.
  Today, though, with the power still in place, with the stroke of a 
pen, the President could use this power to monitor emails, restrict 
access to the internet, control computer systems, television, radio 
broadcast, and cellphones. Longstanding use of this power would 
effectively eviscerate the First Amendment.
  If the REPUBLIC Act, my amendment today, were accepted, the President 
would no longer be able to utilize this power--at least would have 
limited power during a limited time, and a majority of Congress would 
have to affirm the continued use of this emergency.
  Emergency powers were not the type of rule our Founders anticipated 
for our country. The other name for emergency rule is ``martial law.'' 
It is something all of us should object to and say that this should 
only happen in an exceptional case, be very limited, and have the 
ability of Congress to overturn.
  If anyone doubts that emergency powers can be abused, just look to 
Canada. Gene Healy of the Cato Institute wrote:

       America's neighbor to the north offers a cautionary tale 
     about the risks that broad emergency powers could be turned 
     inward against political dissent. In early 2022, Canadian 
     Prime Minister Justin Trudeau faced a mass protest against 
     COVID-19 restrictions, in which Canadian truckers obstructed 
     key border crossings and effectively shut down the capital 
     city with their rigs. Instead of simply clearing out the 
     protesters and punishing them via conventional legal means, 
     Trudeau invoked emergency powers broad enough to permit the 
     financial ``un-personing'' of anyone participating in the 
     protests.

  He went to their bank accounts and took their money. When people 
raised

[[Page S7082]]

money voluntarily through crowd financing to help these truckers, he 
stole that money as well through martial rule. Without any rule of law, 
he took the money. No transaction with the protesters; he took their 
money. People were locked up under martial law.

       Canada's 1988 Emergencies Act gave the Trudeau government 
     staggering powers to subject individual protesters to ``de-
     banking'' without due process.

  This is the danger of Presidential power--of excessive Presidential 
power. It isn't about any individual President; it is about all 
Presidents of either party because men and women will succumb to the 
desire for power. It is inherent in all. That is why we must have 
checks and balances.
  Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland put it 
this way in describing Trudeau's martial law in a February 2022 warning 
to the truckers:

       As of today, a bank or other financial service provider 
     will be able to immediately freeze or suspend an account 
     without a court order.

  The Government of Canada--essentially Trudeau--could freeze a bank 
account without a court order, without due process of law.

       We are today serving notice: If your truck is being used in 
     these protests, your corporate accounts will be frozen. The 
     insurance on your vehicle will be suspended. Send your . . . 
     trailers home.

  While native-born Americans may think that emergency powers are to be 
used to target others, I would venture to guess that the Canadian 
truckers protesting COVID-era mandates didn't expect that their 
government would treat them as foreign adversaries and freeze their 
accounts.
  If it can happen in Canada, it can happen in the United States.
  Expansive emergency powers do not end there. Today in the United 
States--a country that owes its very existence to tax revolt--the 
President can unilaterally impose and raise taxes on foreign imports. 
Now, some of that power, unfortunately, Congress gave to the President, 
but it was a mistake, and we should take the power back.
  The rallying cry of our American Revolution--``no taxation without 
representation''--was not just a protest of the past, it is a core 
principle of American governance. Yet Congress, in its feckless desire 
to abscond on all responsibilities, said to the President: You can have 
it; we don't want it. You can raise taxes anytime you want without a 
vote of Congress.
  Terrible idea. Our Constitution was designed to prevent any branch 
from overstepping its bounds.
  Unchecked Executive actions--enacting tariffs on our citizens without 
a vote of Congress threatens our economy, raises prices on everyday 
goods, and erodes the system of checks and balances that our Founders 
so carefully crafted.
  The REPUBLIC Act, the reform of emergency powers, the limitation of 
emergency powers, would correct this. We end up saying to the 
President: You can't declare an emergency to raise a tax.
  Our Founding Fathers were very specific. Not only did taxes have to 
originate in Congress, they had to originate in the House before coming 
to the Senate because the House was seen as being closer to the people. 
Yet here we are talking about vast taxes being levied by one person 
through emergency powers. We should not let this stand.
  Finally, the REPUBLIC Act, my reform, requires the President to 
disclose Presidential emergency action documents to the Congress. What 
are these? These are Executive orders that are prepared in anticipation 
of a wide range of emergency scenarios. These documents are kept 
secret, and Congress has historically had little oversight or insight 
into how many exist, what they say, and what are the powers that the 
President anticipates taking in an emergency.
  Although the documents have never been made public, there have 
reportedly been emergency orders designed to unilaterally suspend 
habeas corpus, impose censorship, and seize property without warrants. 
We don't know for certain because they will not reveal these Executive 
orders, but we do know that they exist. Congress desperately needs to 
see these documents to conduct oversight of these secret plans that can 
threaten basic constitutional rights.
  We do not have to accept as inevitable or as an inevitability the 
degeneration of a republic into rule by an all-powerful Executive. We 
do not have to live in a monarchy disguised as a republic.
  We would do well to remember Montesquieu, who wrote that ``when the 
executive and legislative powers are combined into one branch, no 
liberty will remain.''
  It is time to reclaim the authority of Congress and protect the 
liberties of people by paring back the vast emergency powers delegated 
to the President.
  I hope the powers-that-be will change their mind and see fit to allow 
a vote on this amendment. There is significant bipartisan support. We 
passed it out of committee I believe 13 to 1. The Democrat chairman is 
a cosponsor of this bill. I think this is a bill that really should 
bring both sides together.
  There used to be pride in our country, pride in the legislative 
branch to hold firm against usurpation of power by the other branches. 
This was a pride that went beyond party label and brought legislators 
together. In recent years, it has been disappointing.
  Some people are for reform of Presidential emergencies when their 
party is not in power, and some people are for it until they are 
against it when their guy or their woman is in power.
  I can tell you this: I have been for this emergency reform under the 
previous President. I am for this emergency reform under the next 
President because this is about power. It is about the dispersion of 
power. It is about decentralizing power. It is about the constitutional 
separation of powers. It is about checks and balances.
  It is important enough that it should be considered. I think it would 
pass were it considered. But the American people need to know that 
important debates like this will only occur if the powers-that-be allow 
the vote to occur. So I would beseech the powers-to-be to allow a vote 
on this amendment and for my colleagues to vote yes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). The Senator from North 
Dakota.


                               H.R. 5009

  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk about 
the National Defense Authorization Act. The act that is called the NDAA 
covers a wide range of topics, but, overall, it helps us chart a course 
to defend our country during these very dangerous times.
  Russia, China, and Iran are working together to undermine U.S. 
interests across the globe. A world led by those nations is, in fact, a 
very dangerous world. And it is a world where the economic well-being 
of ordinary Americans suffer.
  I have visited key U.S. allies and partners in recent years, and I am 
convinced that when we are strong--when the United States is strong--as 
a nation, we attract like-minded partners who will work with us to push 
back on our adversaries and defend freedom, not only here for our 
country but across the globe. And the NDAA is about bolstering our 
defenses and strengthening those very partnerships.
  This bill, for example, establishes a Taiwan Security Cooperation 
Initiative. Now, that is modeled after the Indo-Pacific and Ukraine's 
security assistance initiatives, and it is designed to enable Taiwan to 
maintain sufficient self-defense capabilities, vitally important in the 
Pacific and vitally important that we not work just with Taiwan but 
with all our allies in the Pacific: Japan, Australia, New Zealand, 
South Korea, and others.
  And also, this pact requires the Department of Defense to provide 
Israel with intelligence and advice in support of their war effort in 
the Middle East against Hamas and other terrorist organizations, 
including the largest sponsor of state terrorism in the world, Iran.
  In addition, the NDAA supports a handful of missions that are both 
critical to our security around the globe and of particular interest to 
my State.
  First, for example, UAS and counter-UAS. It is a huge issue right 
now, not only in terms of the battlefield, what we are seeing in 
Ukraine, in the Middle East, and other places, but even here in our own 
country, civilian uses of drones and counter-drones is certainly very 
much at the forefront of the

[[Page S7083]]

public's attention. And we have real problems with UAS threats across 
all of the areas that we operate, here at home and overseas.
  Now, we still have a patchwork approach that has grown out of an ad 
hoc response to specific threats to domestic military installations. 
The Department of Defense very much needs a coherent strategy and clear 
guidance when it comes to drones and countering drones.
  This bill takes a number of important steps toward addressing the 
issue, including: directing the Secretary of Defense to develop a 
strategy for countering unmanned aerial systems and the threats they 
pose to Department of Defense facilities, personnel, and assets. And 
that means not only here at home but across the globe where we have 
personnel and where we have military installations.
  So having that strategy for drones and counter-drones is very, very 
important right now. And it is very complex, as we are seeing.
  This legislation also requires standing up a counter-UAS--unmanned 
aerial system--drone task force to review and update all of DOD 
guidances to provide clarity and expedited decision-making processes 
and information processes so that the public knows what we are doing 
and has confidence in what we are doing.
  In North Dakota, we have a UAS ecosystem that is ready to support 
this initiative, both in the military aspects and in the civilian 
aspects. And we have had that focus on UAS technology going back all 
the way to 2005.
  And again, I think we are one of the only air bases in the country, 
at the Grand Forks Air Force Base, where we operate military and 
civilian, manned and unmanned aircraft, all at the same base, as well 
as our connection to the lower orbit satellites through the Space 
Defense Agency.
  So we have established what we call their Project ULTRA. Project 
ULTRA is specifically designed to move unmanned aerial systems and to 
counter unmanned aerial systems from the drawing board to the 
warfighter. As I say, we have been at that for almost 20 years.
  As DOD contemplates this counter-UAS strategy, we are ready to bring 
industry partners, and I mean some of the leading industry partners 
like Northrup Grumman, like General Atomics, like Raytheon, and many 
others as well. They are already operating. They are in the Grand Sky 
Technology Park on the Grand Forks Air Force Base. And we are ready to 
bring those partnerships--those companies that have developed these 
technologies--together with the Department of Defense under the 
directive in this legislation to defend, like I say, not only our 
military installations but to do more in the civilian airspace so that 
the public can have confidence that when they see a drone flying in our 
national airspace, that it has been accounted for and properly dealt 
with.
  Second, the second huge issue in the NDAA is nuclear modernization. 
Our nuclear deterrent is the foundation of global stability and is 
prerequisite for the success of our conventional forces.
  If we have a nuclear deterrent that no adversary ever questions, then 
they will never go beyond conventional forces. We have the finest 
military in the world. Our conventional forces are more than a match 
for anyone in the world. And so that could create the temptation for 
somebody to actually use nuclear forces. But if they know our deterrent 
is so strong, then they will never actually challenge us. So it is the 
bedrock or the foundation on which our conventional forces reside. We 
are facing an increasingly dangerous nuclear world where we must deter 
multiple nuclear powers at the same time.
  Now, several years ago, I led efforts to ensure that the Department 
of Defense kept our inventory of silos for our intercontinental 
ballistic missiles and preserve a full deployment of these missiles to 
support deterrence.
  Today, we need those missiles to support deterrence against China, 
which is building up its forces incredibly, as well as Russia and North 
Korea.
  This NDAA continues to carry language preserving the number of ICBMs 
that we deploy. It also creates a new Assistant Secretary of Defense to 
oversee nuclear deterrence policies and programs across the Department 
of Defense.
  And most importantly--most importantly--it authorizes the next steps 
in modernizing not only the ICBM force but all three legs of the 
nuclear triad--bombers, the missiles, and submarines. It provides more 
than $5.6 billion in authorizations for modernizing these programs; for 
example, Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota, which is the only dual 
nuclear base that we have, both the bombers and the missiles. But it 
also updates the aircraft, the Sentinel, which is the new missile 
program, the LRSO, long-range stand-off, which is the new air-launched 
cruise missile, which is part of the bomber fleet; the B-52s, the new 
B-2 bombers, as well as our other long-range stand-off missile 
programs.

  All of those things, as well as our submarines, form the nuclear 
deterrent that is the bedrock of our military forces. With the 
evolution of technology, the environment, and our own ambitions--the 
military environment I am talking about--and the near-peer challenges 
that we face with Russia and particularly with China, we have no choice 
but to make sure that we are updating and modernizing our nuclear 
forces so that no one ever challenges the United States or our ability 
to defend ourselves and our allies.
  Space Development Agency--I mentioned that just a minute ago--another 
area of emphasis that is very important in this legislation. We know 
that space is an increasingly important part of defending our Nation 
and our interests around the globe. When we look at Russia, when we 
look at China and what they are doing in space, we must not only keep 
up, we must continue to exceed what they are doing. It is vitally 
important to making sure that our nuclear forces have the best 
technology and a technological advantage in warfare over our 
adversaries.
  This legislation authorizes more than $4 billion for the Space 
Development Agency, including how the Low Earth Orbit Satellite Program 
is operated. This program is significant and will fundamentally 
change--the low Earth orbit satellites, which we are putting out in 
space now, and we will have many of them, I mean, hundreds of them. 
This program is significant and will fundamentally change the way our 
forces operate around the globe.
  Every soldier, every weapon system, and every mission will benefit 
from getting information from these low Earth orbit satellites. And we 
are taking steps in this bill and in the appropriations processes to do 
just that.
  And so when you look at SpaceX, sending those rockets in space, many 
of those have low Earth orbit satellites that we are already putting 
out in space.
  Those low Earth orbit satellites will be controlled from one Army 
base and from one Air Force base. The Army base is the Redstone Army 
base in Alabama. And the Air Force base is the Grand Forks Air Force 
Base in my State.
  Some other provisions that I want to mention are noteworthy as well. 
First, greenhouse gas emissions. This NDAA extends a prohibition that 
we passed last year on any rules that would force contractors to report 
on greenhouse gas emissions.
  I fought hard against these types of regulations, which would add 
unnecessary redtape and delays, drive up costs, and provide no benefit 
to the warfighter.
  The purpose of our weapons systems must be to make sure that our 
forces have a superior advantage to any other forces in the world in 
lethality. And that is exactly how they need to be designed. And that 
is what this provision is designed to ensure.
  Support for our servicemembers, this bill includes a number of 
provisions that I have heard about in regard to strongly supporting our 
servicemembers and their families; for example, pay increases. It 
authorizes a 14.5-percent pay increase for junior enlisted 
servicemembers, E-4 and below, and a 4.5-percent basic pay increase for 
all other servicemembers.
  Second, access to mental health. The bill improves access to services 
for mental health, making it easier for telehealth providers to offer 
services and expand accreditation opportunities for behavioral health 
providers, which is a big need.
  Specialty care travel allowances. The bill includes a provision I 
supported to require the Secretary to reassess the

[[Page S7084]]

travel and transportation allowances provided to servicemembers and 
dependents seeking specialty care--healthcare, within a hundred miles 
of their duty station.
  Military spouse professional licensing permanently grants authority 
to the Department of Defense to make transferring professional licenses 
between States easier for military spouses.
  Diversity, equity, and inclusion: It is important that our military 
members can put mission first, and this bill eliminates authorizations 
for a range of disruptive DEI programs while establishing a 1-year 
freeze on hiring for DEI work at the Department of Defense.
  Like I said at the beginning of my remarks, the NDAA helps us chart a 
course to defend our country during these dangerous times. With the 
passage of the NDAA, we will have the authorization for these important 
programs, and as a member of the Senate Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee, we are ready--I and others are ready--to get to work to 
fund these important programs for our Nation's defense. We have the 
finest military in the world, and we must do all that we can to support 
our men and women in uniform.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warnock). The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, may we have order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I am laughing because it was Senator Hoeven over there probably 
talking about you and me, Mr. President, and I just couldn't let that 
go unchallenged.


                        Tribute to Paloma Chacon

  Mr. President, with me today is one of my able colleagues from my 
Senate office, Ms. Paloma Chacon. Behind my back, some of my staffers 
call Paloma ``Kennedy's brain.'' They think I don't know that they are 
saying that, but it is probably true, and I want to thank her for her 
good judgment, counsel, and advice.


                       New Orleans Mass Shooting

  Mr. President, what I want to talk about briefly tonight breaks my 
heart, but it also makes me mad. But it does break my heart.
  On Thursday, November 21, we had another mass shooting in New 
Orleans--this time in the French Quarter. It happened at the corner of 
Iberville and Royal Streets, across from Dickie Brennan's Steakhouse. 
Three masked men pulled up in a car and started firing. Bystanders 
testified they fired about 40 rounds. One person was killed. Three 
others were injured.
  Some people, particularly back home, are probably thinking: OK. What 
else is new? Another mass shooting in Louisiana and in New Orleans. But 
this one was preventable.
  One of the shooters, who was arrested--his name is Nicholas Miorana. 
Mr. Miorana is 28 years old. He has spent most of his adult life in 
prison. He is, based on his record, a career criminal. He served 7 
years in prison for armed robbery. He got out. Shortly thereafter, in 
2023, Miorana was arrested for a bunch of things: domestic battery, 
child endangerment, a series of gun charges, including being a felon 
with a firearm.
  What happened next is disgusting.
  In January of 2024, our district attorney offered Mr. Miorana a 
really sweet deal. Forget about the child endangerment. Forget about 
the domestic battery. Forget about all the gun charges.
  The DA said: You can plead guilty.
  He said this to Mr. Miorana: You can plead guilty to attempted 
possession of a firearm by a felon--attempted possession of a firearm 
by a felon.
  What? Attempted possession?
  I don't mean to be metaphysical here or teleological, but you either 
possess a firearm or you don't. I don't understand the ``attempted'' 
possession of a firearm. Maybe it was because, had Mr. Miorana been 
offered a deal--take it or leave it--for possession of a firearm as 
opposed to attempted possession of a firearm, which I didn't even know 
exists, it would have carried a 5-year sentence. Obviously, Mr. Miorana 
took the deal, and he appeared before Judge Leon Roche in our criminal 
court in New Orleans. Mr. Roche gave him probation.
  Eight months later, while he was on probation, Mr. Miorana violated 
his probation, and his probation officer sought to revoke his 
probation. Then, 1 month later--nobody did anything about revoking his 
probation. So, 1 month later, Miorana was arrested for domestic abuse 
battery. He went back before Judge Roche. Judge Roche didn't revoke his 
probation. He just gave him house arrest and told him he had to wear an 
ankle monitor. That was in September of 2024. Then, a little bit later, 
Judge Roche decided to lighten even those conditions. He allowed Mr. 
Miorana to be free every day from 9 to 6--every day from 9 to 6--
supposedly, to go to work.
  Beginning on October 8, Mr. Miorana violated the judge's orders every 
single day--every single day for 45 days. How do we know this? He had 
on an ankle monitor, and the monitor company reported to the district 
attorney and to Judge Roche that Mr. Miorana was violating the terms of 
his house arrest and ankle monitoring--45 days.
  Do you know what the district attorney did? Do you know what Judge 
Roche did? Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada. I have already told you how this 
story ends. Allegedly--I have to say ``allegedly''--he has been 
arrested for it anyway. Mr. Miorana and three of his buddies put on a 
mask, got in a Honda, killed somebody in the French Quarter, and shot 
three others. Mr. Miorana was caught. Do you know how he was caught? He 
had on an ankle monitor. He was caught within hours. This was a system 
failure.

  I love New Orleans. I used to live in New Orleans. I earned a living 
in New Orleans. I met my wife in New Orleans. My son lived the first 
couple of years of his life in New Orleans. I love New Orleans.
  What did Tennessee Williams say? ``America has only three cities: New 
York, San Francisco, and New Orleans. Everything else,'' Tennessee 
Williams said, ``is Cleveland.''
  Now, before my friends in Cleveland get mad at me, I didn't say it; 
Tennessee Williams said it. But I think what Mr. Williams was trying to 
convey is what an extraordinary, unique, city New Orleans is. Every 
other State in America would kill to have a New Orleans. Twenty million 
people from all over the world come to visit the city in America which 
is perhaps the most European city and the most diverse city in our 
country. And I love New Orleans. But New Orleans deserves better.
  I wish this hadn't happened. I wish there weren't more people in this 
world like Mr. Miorana. But there are some people in this world who 
just habitually, consistently hurt other people, and they take other 
people's stuff. I wish they wouldn't, but they do. I don't know why 
they do. If I make it to Heaven, I am going to ask. But they do, and 
they have got to be separated from society. And our judges and our 
district attorneys are not doing anybody--anybody--in New Orleans a 
favor by not putting those folks into jail. It breaks my heart. It also 
makes me mad.


                                Turkiye

  Mr. President, the second thing I want to just mention briefly, and I 
say this gently--respectfully, but gently--to President Erdogan, the 
distinguished President of Turkiye: Leave the Kurds alone. Leave the 
Kurds alone.
  The Kurds, as you know, are wonderful people. There are probably 30 
to 40 million Kurds throughout the world. Some we are blessed to have 
here in the United States. They live mostly in Turkiye, Iran, northern 
Iraq, and Syria. The Kurds are a distinct ethnic group. They are sort 
of a stateless country because they are spread all over the world.
  The Kurds are America's friends. It hadn't been that many years ago 
since ISIS was rising high. ISIS had established a caliphate in the 
Middle East. That is a fancy word for a country. They established their 
own country in the Middle East, and America and other countries beat 
them back. We destroyed ISIS. They are still there, but we destroyed 
their caliphate.
  The people most responsible for helping us, most responsible for 
destroying ISIS, were the Kurds. We lost less than 20 American lives in 
destroying ISIS in the Middle East. Our friends the Kurds lost over 
10,000--10,000--fighting alongside of us. Over 30,000 Kurds were 
wounded. Without the Kurds, ISIS would still be there.

[[Page S7085]]

  Now, Mr. Erdogan, the President of Turkiye, does not like the Kurds. 
I am not going to go into why. He is entitled to his opinion. But, 
right now, Mr. Erdogan has troops and tanks and weapons marshaled on 
the border between Turkiye and Syria.
  As we know, the people in Syria finally had enough, and they 
overthrew Mr. Assad, their President. Predictably, Assad, who we think 
stole billions of dollars from the good people of Syria, is now, 
predictably, living in Russia. We are going to try to find his money.
  Mr. Assad, like his father, is a butcher. He killed tens and tens of 
thousands of Syrians, and many of them he hurt the entire time they 
were dying.
  To keep power and his money--a lot of which he made by dealing 
drugs--he used chemical weapons against his own people. And now the 
people in Syria are free of him.
  Everybody else, stay out of Syria. President Trump has already talked 
about it. It doesn't mean we can't offer our advice, but we all need to 
stay out of Syria.
  The defeat of Mr. Assad in Syria would not have happened but for 
Israel. We know that. You don't have to be a graduate of Cal Tech to 
know that. Israel destroyed Hezbollah, which was working with Iran, 
which was working with Russia to keep Assad in power.
  Russia and Iran and Hezbollah were on the side of the butcher. But 
Russia is tied up in Ukraine. Hezbollah was holding down the fort while 
Russia was tied up in Ukraine. And Israel ignored the advice of many 
and just went out and destroyed Hezbollah.
  Thank you, Israel.
  But that is why the people of Syria today are free, and they are 
entitled to self-determination.
  Mr. Erdogan in Turkiye, I worry, is going to invade Syria. I am not 
accusing him of anything, but I worry that he is because we have 
intelligence that he has many soldiers and many tanks and much 
equipment and many weapons right now stationed on the border between 
Turkiye and Syria. And our Kurd friends are afraid that Mr. Erdogan, 
because of his hatred for the Kurds, is going to attack now. The Kurds 
live very peacefully in northeast Syria.
  My message today is: President Erdogan, I don't want to mess in the 
affairs of your country, but don't do it. Leave the Kurds alone. Leave 
the people of Syria alone.
  Turkiye has problems now. Turkiye is supposed to be our friend. 
Turkiye is a member of NATO. Lately, they haven't been acting like our 
friend. Turkiye has its own problems. If we think interest rates are 
high in America, they are close to 50 percent in Turkiye. Some people 
think they are in a recession. Their inflation is between 40 and 50 
percent.
  If you invade Syria and touch a hair on the head of the Kurds, I am 
going to ask this U.S. Congress to do something, and our sanctions are 
not going to help the economy of Turkiye. I don't want to do that. 
Leave the Kurds alone.
  My work here is done. I will show myself to the door, and I will 
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. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________