NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019; Congressional Record Vol. 164, No. 101
(Senate - June 18, 2018)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages S3961-S3973]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 5515, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 5515) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2019 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.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is 
recognized.


                        Forced Family Separation

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, Americans are deeply troubled by the 
images and news of parents being separated from their children at the 
southern border. The Trump administration's policy of zero tolerance at 
the border has already resulted in 2,300 cases of forced family 
separation, according to Homeland Security statistics obtained by the 
Associated Press. The pace of separations has increased from nearly 50 
to nearly 70 a day.
  Any parent could imagine how difficult this is, how heartbreaking it 
is to be forcibly separated from your young son or your young daughter, 
looking at their faces as they wonder: What is going on here? Why are 
they taking my parents away from me? It is just as heartbreaking to 
imagine the separation and the anxiety it produces in everybody.
  Let's be clear. Separating children from their parents and denying 
relief to victims of brutal domestic violence will not make our country 
a better or safer place. These policies are cruel, inhumane, and so 
unlike the America we have known for 229 years.
  No one who doesn't meet the legal requirements should be allowed into 
this country; we cannot have open borders, but we have an adjudication 
process for those cases. In the past, there has been

[[Page S3962]]

no need to separate parents from children while that adjudication was 
occurring. The Trump administration has actively decided to take a 
different, crueler, more callous approach.
  Yet what does President Trump do? He has spent the last few days 
trying to deflect blame. The President has said repeatedly that the 
separation of parents and children is the result of a law ``the 
Democrats forced . . . upon our nation.'' That is not true.
  Allow me to quote from the Associated Press's nonpartisan, fact-check 
of the President's claims. Here is what they say:

       There is no law mandating the separation of children and 
     parents at the border. The separations are a consequence of a 
     Trump administration policy to maximize criminal prosecutions 
     of people caught trying to enter the U.S. illegally. Trump's 
     repeated, but nonspecific references to a Democratic law 
     appear to involve one enacted in 2008. It passed unanimously 
     in Congress--

  That meant Democrats and Republicans supported it--

     and was signed by Republican President George W. Bush.

  He was hardly a Democrat.

       It was focused on freeing and otherwise helping children 
     who come to the border without a parent or guardian. It does 
     not call for family separation.

  I know what Donald Trump will say as he tries to undo our American 
institutions: That is fake news. It is from the Associated Press, which 
has had a reputation of being down the middle for scores of years.
  Let me quote the New York Post editorial, one of the most 
conservative newspapers in America--hard right. Here is what they say:

       The immediate cause of the crisis is Team Trump's decision 
     to start prosecuting illegal border-crossers, rather than 
     simply deporting them.

  In the editorial, they ought to go on and say to President Trump: Fix 
this problem. Stop blaming Democrats. They are not to blame.
  President Trump and Attorney General Sessions announced this zero 
tolerance policy in April, and it went into effect in May. If there 
were a law requiring it, why hasn't it been going on since Trump became 
President? They just started it. Chief of Staff Kelly called the policy 
a ``tough deterrent.'' This has nothing to do with our current 
immigration laws. It has nothing to do with any Democratic law. This is 
entirely a decision made by the Trump administration to start 
separating families.
  Let me say this to President Trump: President Trump, you can undo the 
policy tomorrow, if you want to, with a snap of your fingers. President 
Trump, if you don't want to change the policy, own up to it and defend 
it, instead of blaming somebody falsely. Either reverse it, which you 
can do, Mr. President, or own up to it. But this idea that ``Oh, well, 
Democrats are to blame'' is false and untrue and not showing much 
strength or courage of conviction.


                               HEALTHCARE

  Mr. President, over the past few months, insurers in several States--
Maryland, Virginia, New York, Pennsylvania, and Oregon--have requested 
significant rate increases for next year, the result of Republican 
healthcare policies that have undermined our healthcare system. On 
Friday, the State of Minnesota sought a decrease in their rates.
  Why? What has made Minnesota so different from these other States? 
Why were the people of Minnesota allowed to breathe a sigh of relief 
that their insurance costs weren't going up, whether it be the monthly 
payments or the deductible or the copay?
  Why? I will tell you why. Minnesota implemented a State-funded 
reinsurance program that is helping to backstop their healthcare 
market. This is what can happen when States support patients and fight 
back against what President Trump and congressional Republicans are 
doing. This is what happens when you try to strengthen our healthcare 
system instead of sabotaging it.
  Imagine if every State were like Minnesota. Imagine if every State, 
for the first time in decades, were dropping premiums and out-of-pocket 
costs for consumers next year. Think about what a difference that would 
make in the lives of tens of millions of Americans who pay too much for 
healthcare and worry that their healthcare bills are going to go up and 
the quality of their healthcare and availability of their healthcare 
will go down.
  It wouldn't have been that difficult to achieve the goals of 
Minnesota. We spent months negotiating a bipartisan healthcare 
stabilization package that included ideas like the reinsurance policy 
that has been implemented in Minnesota. Senator Nelson from Florida 
talked about this and wanted to do it; our Republican friends wouldn't.
  Senators Murray and Alexander came to an agreement. It would have 
done a load of good. But rather than pass that bill to strengthen our 
healthcare system, even after the Republicans tried and failed to 
repeal the ACA, the Republicans doubled down on sabotage. They just 
hate the system--the idea that people should get so much help from 
their government--and they make it worse. As a part of the tax bill, 
Republicans repealed the coverage requirement and put nothing in its 
place. Then they added poison pills to the bipartisan bill to make sure 
it wouldn't pass.
  When President Trump canceled the program that helps offset costs for 
low-income Americans and proposed expanding junk insurance plans that 
cost a lot and cover very little, our Republican colleagues hardly made 
a peep.
  Recently, the administration has said that it will refuse to defend 
in court the protections for Americans with preexisting conditions. 
This is a new one. Our Republican friends now say: We don't want to 
make sure a family who has a preexisting condition gets health 
insurance. That is even worse than before.
  Last week, the Republican leader said that his whole caucus supports 
protections for Americans with preexisting conditions. While this is a 
complete reversal from the various healthcare bills our Republican 
leadership supported last year, which would have decimated protections 
for people with preexisting conditions, I applaud him for saying it and 
hope it represents turning over a new leaf.
  Now Senate Republicans have to put their money where their mouth is. 
When President Trump does things that are so bad for the American 
people, so bad for his very supporters who depend on healthcare, our 
Republican colleagues fold. They are afraid of him. I hope that is not 
the case with preexisting conditions because millions of Americans' 
lives and health and sanity, at least fiscal sanity, depend on it.
  If Republicans were serious about maintaining protections for people 
with preexisting conditions, they would join us in urging the Trump 
administration to reverse their shameful decision not to defend the 
preexisting healthcare law in court. They would join us in urging the 
administration not to finalize their plan to sell junk insurance 
policies.
  I say to my Republican friends and my dear friend Leader McConnell: 
Actions speak louder than words. Your simply saying that your whole 
caucus supports protecting Americans with preexisting conditions 
doesn't make it so, as the very administration you support tries to 
undo it.
  Republicans should work with Democrats, right now and throughout the 
summer, to focus on lowering costs for the American people. That starts 
with telling the Trump administration to defend the vital protections 
for Americans with preexisting conditions.
  I wish to say one more thing on the immigration issue.


                        Forced Family Separation

  First, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record the New York Post editorial, which I referenced, titled: ``Stop 
breaking up families at the border.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                             [From NY Post]

                Stop Breaking Up Families at the Border

                       (By Post Editorial Board)

       House Speaker Paul Ryan says he wants to stop the mass 
     separation of children from their families along the border, 
     but his bid to fix it is pathetic. And President Trump's 
     claim that Democrats need to change the relevant law is no 
     better.
       The immediate cause of the crisis is Team Trump's decision 
     to start prosecuting illegal border-crossers, rather than 
     simply deporting them. Because the law severely limits how 
     long the feds can detain the children, immigration officials 
     on the ground then have no choice but to break up the 
     families.
       Ryan's answer is to stick a change of the law into the two 
     big immigration bills he has

[[Page S3963]]

     the House voting on this week. But there's no way the Senate 
     will pass either one--indeed, not much chance the House will.
       Anyway, making it so Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
     can detain the kids along with their parents is only a minor 
     improvement--since ICE is already running out of space to 
     hold people, and looking at ``tent cities'' as a supposedly 
     temporary expedient.
       You can bet that critics will start calling these ``Trump's 
     concentration camps,'' and the term will catch on if they're 
     full of kids.
       The polls were starting to suggest that Republicans might 
     not lose big in this November's midterm elections, but 
     they'll turn back the other way if this keeps up--and rightly 
     so.
       It's not just that this looks terrible in the eyes of the 
     world. It is terrible: at least 2,000 children ripped from 
     their parents' arms, sometimes literally, in just the first 
     six weeks.
       Maybe the White House figures families will stop coming 
     once word gets out, but they won't all stop: Some are fleeing 
     truly horrific situations back home.
       We recognize that returning to the policy of two months 
     back creates some perverse incentives: Bring kids along, and 
     you'll just be deported if you're caught. But at least 
     switching back avoids having the U.S. government earning 
     comparisons to the Nazis.
       If the president doesn't want to admit defeat, he can just 
     add this to the long list of things he blames on Attorney 
     General Jeff Sessions. Trying to tough this one out is 
     guaranteed disaster.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, second, I wish to mention this. The House 
is toying with a bill, supported by some of the less extreme 
Republicans, and they are trying to deal with this issue of family 
separation.
  First, we haven't seen the copy, but from all reports, it doesn't 
really deal with this. Second, it is loaded up with so many other 
poison pills that it is never going to see the light of day.
  If our Republican colleagues in the House, who endeavored to pass the 
discharge petition and failed by a few votes--so they could help the 
Dreamers--want to do something real about this, about the Dreamers, and 
about family reunification, the support of the bill that is dead on 
arrival in the Senate will not assuage their constituents, assuage 
their conscience, or, most important, fix the problem.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the 
humanitarian crisis happening right now in our country at the border--
something I implore my colleagues to fight to stop. The Department of 
Homeland Security is tearing young children from the arms of their 
parents. They are traumatizing infants and children, and Congress needs 
urgently to act.
  I know we have disagreements about immigration policy in this 
Chamber, and I know we have disagreements about how we should fix our 
immigration system, which we have desperately needed to fix for 
decades. Surely, we must be able to agree that Federal agents should 
not be tearing young children from the arms of their parents. We must 
be able to agree that families with infants should not be forcibly 
separated.
  Where is the outrage? Where is the urgency?
  I hear my colleagues speak all the time about Federal Government 
overreach. If this isn't Federal Government overreach, what is? This is 
the moment that they have gone too far. One mother was breastfeeding 
her infant. A Federal agent took that baby out of her mother's arms, 
handcuffed her, and arrested her.
  Where is that baby now? How is that baby doing? Where is the baby's 
mother?
  From mid-April through the end of last month, almost 2,000 children 
were separated from adults at the border. Nearly 50 times a day on 
American soil, our government has separated a child from their parents, 
creating fear and terror in their lives. Just today, it was reported 
that the Department of Homeland Security is now holding 11,785 minors--
11,785 minors. This is a disgrace.
  One worker at a detention center for children just resigned as a 
conscientious objector, and he described the children being held there 
as a ``traumatized population that has no clue what's going on.'' He 
said the staff was not prepared at all to look after 4- and 5-year-olds 
who were coming into these detention centers. He said the kids were 
screaming and crying for their moms and dads. Pediatricians who met 
these children were calling it ``government-sanctioned child abuse.''

  One of our colleagues in the House was able to meet with mothers 
whose children were taken from them at the border. She said that in 
some cases, the mothers were ``literally sitting in a room next to 
where the children were being held and could hear their children 
screaming.''
  Have we not studied our own history? This is the kind of thing we 
read about in history books and to which we shake our heads in disgust. 
We ask ourselves: How did we let this happen? We ask ourselves: Why 
didn't Congress stop this? Why didn't anyone do anything? Don't we 
remember what happened during World War II with the Japanese internment 
camps? Children were traumatized, and families were damaged--in some 
cases permanently. The memorial to remind us of this is a stone's throw 
from the U.S. Capitol. It is just for the purpose of reminding us to 
never do it again. We cannot let our country go down this dark road 
again.
  If Congress does not stop the out-of-control Department of Homeland 
Security--if Congress does not stop families from being torn apart--
even though it is happening right in front of our eyes, then this 
Congress will go down in history as a weak Congress that did nothing to 
stop one of the worst, horrific chapters of American history.
  This has to be the moment when we do our jobs--when we stand up, 
speak truth to power, and do the right thing. We don't know how many 
kids are going to be traumatized for the rest of their lives because of 
our actions. These young children will never forget that when they 
first came to America, they were separated from their mothers and their 
fathers.
  The President of the United States is not telling the truth to the 
American people about this policy. It is not true that this immoral and 
repulsive practice of separating children from their parents is a 
mandatory result of existing law. It is just not true. This is the 
stated practice and policy of zero tolerance by this administration. It 
is abhorrent and immoral. The administration could stop this all by 
itself today if it wanted to, but since it will not, Congress will need 
to act. If this Congress cannot or will not push back against this 
administration when it is actually harming children, when will it act?
  I urge my colleagues to come together right now to stop this stain on 
our Nation. We have a bill that was introduced by Senator Feinstein. We 
already have 49 cosponsors. We should vote on this bill. It would 
protect the welfare of children. It would make sure that children would 
not be separated from their parents. The only time they would be 
separated from their parents or the adults they are with is if they are 
being trafficked or abused. Otherwise, families should be allowed to 
stay together.
  We should do the right thing. This is a moral issue. This is a 
humanitarian issue. This is an issue of right versus wrong. As a mother 
and as a legislator, I can't imagine the terror these parents face in 
not knowing what is going to happen to their children. It is wrong for 
us to stand by silently. It is wrong for us to do nothing. This is what 
the darkness looks like. We have to stand up against it.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, in a few minutes--maybe in about an hour 
and a half--we will be voting on the National Defense Authorization 
Act, which Congress has passed faithfully for 57 consecutive years. 
That indicates the sense of importance we all have toward funding and 
providing the authorities and equipment and training that are necessary 
for our military to do the job we have asked it to do.
  I particularly commend Senators Inhofe and Reed for their leadership 
in guiding us through the passage of this bill.
  There are 1.8 million people in the world who are on Active Duty in 
the U.S. military--1.8 million people. The United States has 737 
military installations, and the Department of Defense is

[[Page S3964]]

the world's largest employer. Supporting all of these people in these 
facilities is no easy task, and the Defense authorization bill is one 
very significant way in which we do exactly that. It is how we make 
sure that all of the men and women in uniform are paid, that our 
alliances are strengthened, and that military facilities are properly 
modernized and maintained.
  The bill we are voting on will support an appropriation of up to $716 
billion for those tasks. I might add that that is a huge number, but 
this is the Federal Government's No. 1 responsibility. In my opinion, 
everything else the Federal Government does comes after providing for 
the common defense because nobody else--no local government, no State 
government, no private sector--could possibly provide for the common 
defense.
  America's leadership role in the world remains essential because we 
know that while there are other countries that will work with us--for 
example, our NATO allies--they require and the world really demands 
American leadership, and that is what provides for the safety and 
security and the peace all across the planet.
  In Texas, there are roughly 200,000 men and women who wear the 
uniform of the U.S. military in places like Fort Hood, Joint Base San 
Antonio, Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, and Dyess Air Force Base in 
Abilene. Those are the people I think of each year as we take up the 
Defense authorization bill. We rely on them to provide our security, 
and they rely on us to deliver what they need in order to be 
successful.
  One thing this year's bill will do is to give our troops a 2.6-
percent pay raise, which will be the largest in 10 years. It doesn't 
sound like a lot, but I am sure they will appreciate it nonetheless.
  Given the state of today's world, maintaining our military readiness 
has never been more important or more difficult. The array of security 
threats that face the United States is more complex and diverse than it 
has been at any time since World War II. Our military leaders say that 
the strategic environment has not been this competitive since the Cold 
War. Our adversaries are investing in their capabilities and, in some 
areas, are surpassing us. Simply put, America no longer enjoys the 
comparative advantage it once had over our competitors and adversaries.
  As I said earlier, the Defense authorization bill is important for 
reasons that hit much closer to home. I am thinking about Texas 
military families and military facilities. This year's Defense 
authorization bill will authorize $158 million for military 
construction projects in Texas, including a new basic military training 
dormitory at Joint Base San Antonio and a new warehouse at the Red 
River Army Depot in East Texas.
  It will prioritize access to high-quality education for military 
children, establish a Federal grant program for infrastructure near 
military communities, as well as to protect our airports and airfields 
from radar interference, which builds on previous efforts at Sheppard 
Air Force Base and Naval Air Station Corpus Christi.
  One additional part of the Defense authorization bill I will 
highlight promotes justice for victims of sexual assault on military 
bases. This stems from a piece of legislation that I cosponsored with 
the Senator from Maine, Mr. King, which has been included in the final 
bill that we are voting on, called the Children of Military Protection 
Act. It is based on actual case studies at Fort Hood and Fort Bliss 
that were brought to my attention by military lawyers.
  Finally, the Defense authorization bill will invest in a medical 
program at Fort Bliss, cyber institutes at places like Texas A&M, and 
our workhorse legacy fighter aircraft, like the F-16s at Joint Base 
Fort Worth.
  Texas priorities are far from the only ones addressed in the NDAA, 
but they are important, and I am glad we are taking care of 
servicemembers in my State and keeping our commitment to them. So let's 
get the NDAA across the finish line this evening.


                        Family Separation Policy

  Madam President, the other issue I want to talk about is the ongoing 
situation at the U.S.-Mexico border. This is the border from my State 
to Mexico--1,200 miles of common border.
  Just like under the Obama administration in 2014, we have seen a 
surge of unaccompanied children and families coming across our southern 
border during the spring and summer months. Overwhelmingly, these 
families and these children are coming from Central America--in other 
words, from countries that are not adjacent to or contiguous to the 
United States. Some have presented themselves lawfully at ports of 
entry, but others have tried to enter illegally.
  For example, if you are attempting to claim asylum, you can show up 
at one of our bridges or ports of entry and claim asylum without 
breaking the law. Yet, if you enter the country between the ports of 
entry--through the wild, wild west, I will call it, of the Texas 
frontier and border region--you will be entering the country illegally. 
You can then claim asylum, but you will still have entered the country 
illegally, so your asylum claim will have to be considered in that 
context.
  The Trump administration has made the decision to enforce all of our 
laws by prosecuting adults in criminal court when they are apprehended 
after having crossed our borders illegally. I support that approach--a 
zero tolerance approach--for adults who violate our immigration laws. 
This law has been on the books for many decades but has not always been 
adequately enforced.
  Because of numerous Federal court decisions, settlements, and 
statutes, an adult can be separated from a child as part of the legal 
process as it plays out. That way, children are placed in separate, 
safer settings. I doubt many of us would want a child to go to a jail 
cell in which somebody is being held for having illegally entered the 
country. That is why children are put in separate, safer settings. They 
aren't left unattended to fend for themselves amongst potentially 
violent criminals who are being detained in regular ICE or Bureau of 
Prison facilities.
  Those legal decisions, settlements, and statutes are important to 
acknowledge because, as the New York Times stated this week, ``There is 
no [express] Trump administration policy stating that illegal border 
crossers must be separated from their children.'' So the New York 
Times--hardly a big Trump cheerleader--has said, ``There is no 
[express] Trump administration policy stating that illegal border 
crossers must be separated from their children.'' In other words, this 
is as a result of other consent decrees and laws which are within the 
power of Congress to change. In fact, I think every Member of this 
Chamber will agree that we should never be placing children in prison 
cells or jails with hardened criminals when their parents are being 
prosecuted. By the same token, I don't want family members to be 
separated from one another as a result of DHS and administration 
officials enforcing the laws they are sworn to uphold. We have to keep 
family members together and prevent unnecessary hardship, stress, and 
outrage.

  The good news is, we have it within our power to find a better way 
because parents who are awaiting court proceedings shouldn't have to do 
so separated from their children and children shouldn't be taken from 
their parents and left frightened and confused about where they are and 
what is transpiring around them.
  In 2014, I introduced a bipartisan bill called the HUMANE Act with my 
colleague Representative Henry Cuellar of Laredo, TX. I plan to soon 
reintroduce an updated version of that legislation. It will include 
provisions that mitigate the problem of family separation while 
improving the immigration court process for unaccompanied children and 
families apprehended at the border.
  To the greatest extent possible, families presenting at ports of 
entry or apprehended crossing the border illegally will be kept 
together while waiting for their court hearings, which will be 
expedited. Additionally, this legislation will help eliminate the 
incentive for unaccompanied minors and family units with children to 
come to the U.S. illegally by expediting their court hearings. We found 
that catch and release is merely an inducement for further illegal 
immigration. By detaining these families together to make sure they 
appear before an immigration judge and receive any immigration benefits 
they are entitled to under Federal law, this will serve as a further 
deterrent for others who do not qualify

[[Page S3965]]

for those immigration benefits. These minors should be afforded all 
required due process and have access to representation in court when 
making their claims. Through this expedited immigration court process, 
we would help ensure that children and family units with claims for 
immigration relief in the United States are able to receive their day 
in court rather than waiting in a multiyear backlog.
  This legislation is not a solution for all of our problems at the 
border--far be it--but it would make real improvements to deter illegal 
immigration while ensuring the humane treatment of children and family 
members who entered the country in violation of our laws. I ask 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take a hard look at this bill 
and work together to find a reasonable solution for this component of 
the crisis at our border.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, before I go to the substance of my 
remarks, let me just say what I think is on the minds of millions of 
Americans today, whether they are progressives or conservatives, 
Democrats or Republicans or Independents. The United States of America 
is not and must never be about locking up little children in cages on 
the southern border. Right now, we have the opportunity, and must take 
advantage of that opportunity, to pass legislation to end that horrific 
practice.
  Madam President, I want to take this moment to thank my colleagues 
for their very hard work on the Department of Defense authorization 
bill. Unfortunately, for a number of reasons which I will articulate 
right now, I intend to vote against it, and certainly one of those 
reasons is that when you have legislation that expends $716 billion--
let me repeat it--$716 billion, it is totally unacceptable that we do 
not have a serious debate on the floor of the Senate that amendments 
are not accepted to improve this legislation.
  I have submitted a number of amendments, and other colleagues, I 
know, have done the same. I want to express my strong feelings about 
our Nation's bloated military budget, particularly in light of the many 
unmet needs we face as a nation.
  A $716 billion military budget is over half of the discretionary 
budget in this country. The size of that budget tells me we need 
vigorous debate on it. We need to find where there is waste, where 
there is fraud, where there are cost overruns, and to simply pass that 
gigantic budget without scrutiny is simply not acceptable.
  I have heard over and over my Republican colleagues and some of my 
Democratic colleagues come down to the floor to complain about a $21 
trillion national debt--and they are right. That is a huge debt we are 
leaving to our children and our grandchildren, but I do find it 
interesting that I do not hear any objections to the size of this 
military budget, to the fact that it has been expanded by $165 billion 
over the next 2 years.
  So what I do find is that when we talk about providing healthcare to 
all of our people--and doing what every other major nation on Earth 
that guarantees healthcare as a right and not a privilege does--
suddenly people are standing up and saying: We can't afford it. It is 
too expensive. But when it comes to a $716 billion military budget, 
which is more than the 10 next countries combined spend on defense, I 
do not hear a word about the size of the budget and about our deficit.
  We have been told over and over that we cannot make public colleges 
and universities tuition-free; that we cannot lower the student debt 
levels that millions of people in this country carry decade after 
decade; that we cannot make public colleges and universities tuition-
free, but somehow we can spend $716 billion on a military budget. Even 
though over half of older Americans have no retirement savings, we have 
been told we need to cut Social Security, not expand Social Security.
  I think it is time to get our priorities right, and what our 
priorities are about is addressing the fact that we have the highest 
rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country; that we have 
millions of seniors in Vermont and around this country trying to get by 
on $11,000, $12,000, $13,000 a year in Social Security; that our 
infrastructure is collapsing. Maybe we ought to start addressing the 
issues and the needs of the working people of this country rather than 
just pour more and more money into the defense budget.
  The time is long overdue for us to take a hard look at the enormous--
and I underline the word ``enormous''--amount of waste, the cost 
overruns, the fraud and the financial mismanagement that has plagued 
the Department of Defense for decades. That is why I have offered a 
bipartisan amendment, along with Senators Grassley and Lee, to end the 
absurdity of the Department of Defense being the only Federal agency to 
have not undergone an audit. I don't think it is too much to ask, when 
we are spending $716 billion, to have the Department of Defense give us 
an audit to tell the American people how that money is being spent. 
Tell us about the fraud. Tell us about the cost overruns.
  According to a Gallup poll a few months ago, 65 percent of the 
American people oppose spending more money on the Department of 
Defense, but that is precisely what we are doing right now--not only 
spending more money but spending a lot more money.
  As a point of comparison--and it is important we do this--the 
increase in military spending that is in this bill is larger than the 
entire budget of China. I am just talking about the increase in 
military spending. China spends about $150 billion a year on defense. 
We are going to be increasing military spending by $165 billion over a 
2-year period. Russia spends about $61 billion a year on defense. This 
budget, again, is $716 billion.
  Now, I am sure our friends in the defense contractor industry are 
very excited about this--they are going to be making zillions of 
dollars--but I am not so sure working people are excited about a budget 
at the same time as my Republican friends tell us we cannot afford 
nutrition programs for children or to expand Social Security for the 
elderly.
  I think we all believe in a strong national defense, but we cannot 
continue to give the Pentagon and defense contractors like Lockheed 
Martin a blank check while we ignore the needs of working families.
  About half of the Pentagon's $716 billion budget goes directly into 
the hands of private contractors, not our troops. There are troops out 
there who are living on food stamps. We want to address that problem, 
but at the same time we do not have to make the military industrial 
complex even wealthier than they are today.
  Let us also be clear. Over the past two decades, virtually every 
major defense contractor in the United States has paid millions of 
dollars in fines and settlements for misconduct and fraud, all while 
making huge profits on these government contracts. Since 1995, Boeing, 
Lockheed Martin, and United Technologies have paid nearly $3 billion in 
fines or related settlements for fraud or misconduct. That is $3 
billion in payments to the government for fraud or misconduct. Yet 
those three companies alone received about $800 billion in defense 
contracts over the past 18 years.
  Does anybody care that the major defense contractors in this country, 
time after time after time, are found guilty of fraud and various types 
of misconduct?
  One of the amendments I have filed would simply require the Pentagon 
to establish a website on defense contractor fraud with a list of 
companies convicted of defrauding the Federal Government. I don't think 
that is a radical idea. The American people might want to know what 
companies have been found guilty of defrauding the Federal Government.
  Further, I find it interesting that the very same defense contractors 
that have been found guilty or reached settlements for fraud are also 
paying their CEOs and their executives excessive and obscene 
compensation packages. Last year, the CEOs of Lockheed Martin and 
Raytheon, two of the top four U.S. defense contractors, were each paid 
over $20 million in total compensation. Moreover, more than 90 percent 
of the revenue of those companies came from defense spending. In other 
words, we have a situation where companies that get almost all of their 
revenue from defense contracting are paying their CEOs 100 times more 
than the Secretary of Defense gets, whose salary

[[Page S3966]]

is capped at $205,000 a year. That, to me, makes no sense at all. That 
is why I have filed an amendment to prohibit defense contractor CEOs 
from making more money than the Secretary of Defense.
  Moreover, as the GAO has told us, there are massive cost overruns in 
the Defense Department's acquisition budget that must be addressed. 
According to the GAO, the Pentagon's $1.66 trillion acquisition 
portfolio currently suffers from more than $537 billion in cost 
overruns, with much of the cost growth taking place after production. 
In other words, defense contractors say: We are going to build a 
weapons system for x amount of dollars, and then they simply change 
their mind and ask for a lot more. That is not the way you protect the 
taxpayers' dollars or the way you run a government. In my view, that 
has to change.
  A major reason why there is so much waste, fraud, and abuse at the 
Pentagon is the fact that the Defense Department remains the only 
Federal agency in America that has not been able to pass an independent 
audit 28 years after Congress required it to do so. Very interestingly, 
on September 10, 2001, 1 day before 9/11, former Secretary of Defense 
for George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, said:

       Our financial systems are decades old. According to some 
     estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We 
     cannot share information from floor to floor in the building 
     because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that 
     are inaccessible or incompatible.

  Yet 17 years after Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's statements, DOD 
still has not passed a clean audit, despite the fact that the Pentagon 
controls assets in excess of $2.2 trillion, or roughly 70 percent of 
what the entire Federal Government owns.
  The Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan 
concluded in 2001 that $31 billion to $60 billion spent in Iraq and 
Afghanistan had been lost to fraud and waste. Children in America go 
hungry. Veterans sleep out on the street. Elderly people can't make it 
on $12,000 a year of Social Security, but, apparently, there is not a 
lot of concern that $31 billion to $60 billion spent in Iraq and 
Afghanistan have been lost to fraud and waste.
  Separately, in 2015 the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan 
Reconstruction reported that the Pentagon could not account for $45 
billion in funding for reconstruction projects. More recently, an audit 
conducted by Ernst & Young for the Defense Logistics Agency found that 
it could not properly account for some $800 million in construction 
projects. It is time to hold the Defense Department to the same level 
of accountability as the rest of the government.
  I would also like to spend a minute talking about an amendment that 
makes a great deal of sense to me. In this bill, we are spending $716 
billion in defense spending in order to protect the American people. 
This bill does that through the production of planes, bombs, guns, 
missiles, tanks, nuclear weapons, submarines, and other weapons of 
destruction. It is being funded in this bill.
  The amendment I am proposing would reduce the Defense Department by 
one-tenth of 1 percent. It would use that money to make us safer by 
reaching out to people throughout the world in ways that bring us 
together through educational and cultural exchange programs. At the end 
of the day, we are a safer country and a safer planet when we do our 
best to rid the ignorance and hatred that exists all over the world. 
One way you do that is by finding and discovering that we have a common 
humanity. When children from other countries come into our classrooms 
and our kids sit in the classrooms of other countries, it turns out 
that we have a lot more in common than we have in opposition. We can 
reduce hatred and bigotry in that way. Dialogue cannot only take place 
between foreign ministers or diplomats at the United Nations. It should 
be taking place between people throughout the world at the grassroots 
level.
  On a separate note, let me mention that since March 2015, the U.S. 
Armed Forces have been involved in hostilities between a Saudi-led 
coalition and the Houthis in Yemen. I believe that the time is long 
overdue for us to put an end to that unconstitutional and unauthorized 
participation in this war.
  The truth about Yemen is that U.S. forces have been actively engaged 
in support of the Saudi coalition in this war, providing intelligence 
and aerial refueling of planes whose bombs have killed thousands of 
people and made the humanitarian crisis there even worse.
  Even now, as I speak, there are reports of an attack on the Yemeni 
port city of Hodeidah by the Saudi-led coalition. Hodeidah is a key 
entry point for humanitarian aid into Yemen. The U.N. humanitarian 
coordinator in the country, Lisa Grande, said last week:

       A military attack or siege on Hodeidah will impact hundreds 
     of thousands of innocent civilians. . . . In a prolonged 
     worst case, we fear that as many as 250,000 people may lose 
     everything--even their lives.

  The Trump administration has tried to justify our involvement in the 
Yemen war as necessary to push back on Iran. You will all recall that 
another administration told us that invading Iraq was necessary to 
confront al-Qaida, and another administration way back told us that the 
Vietnam war was necessary to contain communism. It turned out that in 
every instance, none of that was true.
  We should have asked tougher questions then. We should be asking 
tougher questions now, and we should be taking our constitutional role 
more seriously.
  The issue of going to war is not a Presidential prerogative. It is 
the prerogative of the U.S. Congress. We have now been in Afghanistan 
for nearly 17 years and in Iraq for 15 years. Our troops are now in 
Syria under what I believe are questionable authorities, and the 
administration has indicated that it may broaden that mission even 
more.
  The time is now for Congress to reassert its constitutional role in 
determining when and where our country goes to war. That is why I have 
filed a bipartisan amendment, along with Senators Lee, Murphy, Warren, 
and several others, that would put an end to the U.S. refueling of 
Saudi-led coalition planes. This amendment will send a strong message 
that the United States will no longer participate in this humanitarian 
catastrophe.
  Directly related to the conflict in Yemen is the issue of Iran. The 
Trump administration has repeatedly justified its support for the 
Saudi-Emirati war in terms of pushing back on Iran's activities.
  The Trump administration has signaled in many ways that it intends to 
confront Iran. If anyone has any doubt, I remind them that President 
Trump's new National Security Advisor, John Bolton, wrote an article a 
few years ago that was entitled ``To Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran.'' I 
have very serious concerns that this administration could lead the 
United States into another major war in the Middle East, which is the 
last thing that the American people want.
  Let me conclude by saying this. I think everybody in the Congress 
believes and understands that we need a strong defense, but we do not 
need a defense budget that is bloated, that is wasteful, and that has 
in it many areas of fraud. I would hope that all of my colleagues 
remember what a former Republican President, Dwight David Eisenhower, 
said as he left office in 1961. This is what President Eisenhower said 
as he was leaving office:

       In the councils of government, we must guard against the 
     acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or 
     unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential 
     for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will 
     persist.

  In an earlier speech, Eisenhower, a four-star general who led 
American forces in World War II--not exactly a pacifist--said:

       Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every 
     rocket signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who 
     hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not 
     clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It 
     is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its 
     scientists, the hopes of its children. . . . This is not a 
     way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of 
     threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

  I would ask all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to 
remember what President Eisenhower said.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
amendments be considered and agreed to en bloc: Sanders amendment No. 
2905, regarding the DOD audit; amendment No.

[[Page S3967]]

2657, regarding a citizen exchange program; amendment No. 2660, 
regarding Saudi refueling; and amendment No. 2506, regarding defense-
contractor compensation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Let me just mention that we have a list of about 40 
amendments that have gone through the process and have been cleared on 
both sides. These four were not among those.
  I am still holding out hope to be able to get not just those but also 
a managers' amendment. However, that had to be something that has gone 
through the process, and these have not. So I do respectfully object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SANDERS. Thank you.
  Madam President, I raise a point of order that the pending measure 
violates section 4106 of H. Con. Res. 71, the concurrent resolution on 
the budget for fiscal year 2018.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to waive 
the point of order is considered made.
  Mr. SANDERS. With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on 
the motion to waive the budget act with respect to the Sanders' point 
of order occur at 5:30 p.m. today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, as President pro tempore of the U.S. 
Senate and as the senior Senator from the great State of Utah, I wish 
to speak today about the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2019.
  I join my colleagues in congratulating my good friend Senator John 
McCain on the soon-to-be-successful passage of the 58th straight 
Defense bill. I would also like to offer my sincere appreciation for 
Senators Inhofe and Reed and their staffs, along with Senator McCain's 
staff, who gracefully navigated the committee and the floor processes. 
This is a monumental bill that will truly modernize our Armed Forces.
  I have long appreciated the bipartisan nature of each year's NDAA. 
Some would say that this process could be seen as a microcosm of how 
things should work here in Congress--putting the good of the country 
ahead of politics. It is certainly how I have sought to do things here 
during my Senate service. I also appreciated the efforts from most 
Members of this body to get to yes on such an important proposal.
  The yearly Defense bill is not something we do out of tradition or 
habit; we do it out of necessity. Yes, it is a constitutional 
requirement, but perhaps more importantly, it is an honor to give our 
men and women in uniform the tools they need to keep America safe. The 
policies and authorizations we have debated on the floor over the last 
week represent people. They represent soldiers, sailors, marines, 
airmen, and the civilian workforce, all of whom are family, friends, 
neighbors, and fellow citizens.
  Since first coming to the Senate in 1977, I have witnessed the use of 
military force for good across the globe. I was personally involved in 
helping use our military tools to counter Soviet expansionism in 
Central Asia. It was around that time that I helped establish the 
National Endowment for Democracy--an initiative in which Senator McCain 
was intimately involved. The National Endowment for Democracy embodies 
our commitment to promoting the virtues of freedom and liberty across 
the globe.
  Anyone who knows me knows that I like to see the good in people, but 
even with my optimism, one unfortunate truth exists: There are people 
and groups in this world who seek to do harm to the United States, and 
our men and women in uniform face these threats every day. I am 
eternally grateful for the sacrifice and dedication of our 
servicemembers. I am grateful for their strength, their intelligence, 
and their commitment to preserving the values we hold dear.
  As we see today with the heinous violations of human rights around 
the world, freedom, prosperity, and security are under constant threat. 
The abusive actions of the Governments of Iran and North Korea are just 
two examples among many.
  Given the constant threats our country and our allies face, we must 
always work to maintain a strategic advantage over our adversaries. We 
must be able to win wars without fighting them, and if we need to 
fight, we need to begin wars having already won them. How do we do 
this? By investing in our military and the civilians who support them, 
giving them more of what they need, not less; by modernizing our 
weapons systems; by taking care of our bases and facilities; and by 
never losing sight that people come first and that our obligation to 
them extends beyond their service to the Nation. That is what we have 
accomplished with this year's NDAA, which covers an unprecedented $716 
billion in support of the Department of Defense and the national 
security program of the Department of Energy.
  With this historic bill, members of our Armed Forces will enjoy a 
2.6-percent pay increase. With this legislation, we also increase 
personnel for all branches of the military.
  This bill represents a significant step forward in the modernization 
of our Armed Forces. The future fighting force of high-tech warfare is 
quickly becoming a reality. But we cannot rest on our laurels. Just as 
our adversaries modernize their forces, we have to do the same. I think 
we can all agree that maintaining our strategic advantage against now 
near-peer adversaries must always be our objective.
  So how do we prepare our future fighting force? We continue to 
modernize through recapitalization efforts, such as the F-35, KC-46, 
and the future ground-based strategic deterrent. We have to maintain 
our competitive edge. We must also focus on attracting talent and 
shoring up the supply chain.
  In serving Utah, I have been honored to represent the hard-working 
men and women of our major military installations--Hill Air Force Base, 
Dugway Proving Ground, Tooele Army Depot, Camp Williams, and the Utah 
Test and Training Range, which cannot be duplicated. Contained within 
this bill are necessary increases to keep those installations manned 
and operational. Utah is a wonderful place that provides extensive 
support to the warfighter through advance manufacturing, training, and 
operational capabilities.
  I have faithfully worked on behalf of the people of Utah and the 
people of this great country for the last 42 years. As a symbol of my 
respect for the men and women in uniform, I wish to express my sincere 
reverence and gratitude for all who have given the ultimate sacrifice 
in serving our country, including the over 330 Utahns who have died 
while on Active Duty service since 1976. I likewise wish to honor their 
families, whose sacrifices are just as great.
  That we were able to accomplish so much with this Defense bill is 
credit to the leadership of Senator John McCain--and others but 
certainly Senator McCain--who has been a key part of this legislation 
over the course of his Senate service. Senator McCain is so much more 
than the chairman of the Armed Services Committee; he is an American 
hero who represents the best this Nation has to offer. I know I speak 
for all of my colleagues in thanking him for his service and sacrifice.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I rise to highlight a number of 
important issues related to this year's defense authorization act.
  Let me begin with a few words about the chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee. It is fitting that the bill is named after the 
senior Senator from Arizona, as the John S. McCain National Defense 
Authorization Act. His imprint is clear and direct, all throughout this 
bill. The bill makes clear America's strong commitment to our allies--
from Europe to Asia. It also demonstrates our clear commitment to 
defend those allies from our enemies whenever and wherever the need 
arises.
  Those are principles held by every Member of this Senate. But there 
are few who can defend those principles more vigorous to friend or foe 
than the senior Senator from Arizona. As he noted in a speech last 
fall, ``The international order we helped build from the ashes of world 
war, and that we defend

[[Page S3968]]

to this day, has liberated more people from tyranny and poverty than 
ever before in history. This wondrous land has shared its treasures and 
ideals and shed the blood of its finest patriots to help make another, 
better world. And as we did so, we made our own civilization more just, 
freer, more accomplished and prosperous. . . .''
  Even though he cannot be here, he is here with us, and we are there 
with him. I would also like to thank the ranking member and the senior 
Senator from Oklahoma for their work to protect our national defense 
and provide for our servicemembers.
  One area that I wish to highlight--and the defense authorization 
highlights this year--is the U.S. investment in maintaining our 
technological edge. We recently held a classified hearing in the 
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee on this subject. The short of it is 
that America cannot take its advantages for granted.
  It is not clear to me that the Federal Government has its head in the 
game. In the 1960s, Federal investment in R&D reached as high as 2.23 
percent of GDP. In 2016, that had plummeted to 0.77 percent. In 1995, 
the U.S. ranked fourth globally for R&D expenditures as a share of GDP. 
By 2015, it ranked tenth. Recent history is no better. Last year, the 
President proposed a 17-percent cut to Federal R&D, a greater annual 
cut than any in the postwar era, including a 5 percent cut to defense 
R&D.
  I appreciate how strongly this year's defense authorization 
highlights the importance of this issue, including increased emphasis 
on high priority emerging technologies like hypersonics, artificial 
intelligence, space, and cyber. Chairman Shelby and I will do our part 
as appropriators to maintain a strong emphasis on innovation and 
technology, and I appreciate hearing a similarly clear message from the 
Armed Services Committee.
  One area I am concerned about is the state of our defense personnel. 
Last year, Congress approved a 2.4-percent increase in pay for our 
military personnel and our Defense civilians. This year's budget 
requests a 2.6 percent increase, but only for our military personnel.
  Our men and women in uniform deserve this pay raise, and I am glad 
that this increase will continue to ensure that America maintains the 
best all-volunteer military in the world, but denying three-quarters of 
a million Defense civilian employees a similar pay raise makes no 
sense.
  Oddly enough, the Pentagon recently issued a Defense Business 
Operations Plan in April, which highlighted the importance of these 
civilian employees. It argues, ``Recruiting, developing, and retaining 
a high-quality military and civilian workforce is essential for 
warfighting success.'' The report also notes that the Pentagon plans to 
increase defense civilians in the next several years.
  If we have any hope of recruiting, sustaining, and growing our 
Defense workforce, we have to be willing to provide appropriate 
compensation. Congress must act this year to ensure that the Department 
remains competitive in this area.
  I am also concerned about the provisions in the bill related to 
nuclear weapons. During markup, the Armed Services Committee adopted an 
amendment on party lines an amendment to remove Congress's right to 
have a say in the creation of new nuclear weapons.
  Under current law, the President must come to Congress for permission 
in order to create a new nuclear weapon. It was a compromise brokered 
more than 10 years ago by the senior Senator from Rhode Island and the 
then-senior Senator from Virginia, John Warner.
  It was a very good provision. Nuclear weapons are unlike any other 
weapon in the US arsenal, with the power to literally end life on 
Earth. They are unique and deserve extraordinary scrutiny. It is 
shocking that Congress would cede its oversight responsibility in this 
critical area. I support the amendment by the ranking member to reverse 
this foolish provision, and I hope that we can address the issue in 
conference.
  We were unable to address several of these issues during floor 
consideration of the defense authorization bill. I hope that the 
conferees will address them during the next phase of the bill. In the 
meantime, I reiterate my thanks to Chairman McCain, Ranking Member 
Reed, and Senator Inhofe for their work on this bill.
  Madam President. I am disappointed an amendment authored by Senator 
Inhofe waiving the Immigration and Nationality Act's terrorism bars is 
included in the National Defense Authorization Act. This amendment 
would create a special immigration carveout for two groups from the 
African country of Rwanda that committed serious war crimes.
  Under our immigration laws, any foreigner who is a member of a 
terrorist organization or provides material support to a terrorist 
organization cannot be admitted to our country. The Inhofe amendment 
would give the Trump administration the unreviewable authority to waive 
these terrorism bars for two Rwandan groups--the Rwandan Patriotic 
Front, RPF, and the Rwandan Patriotic Army, RPA--for activities prior 
to August 1994, a period when these groups reportedly engaged in crimes 
against humanity.
  This is the precise time when members of the Hutu tribe, which makes 
up the majority of the population in Rwanda, were perpetrating a 
horrific genocide against the Tutsis, the second largest group in 
Rwanda. What is not as well known is that Tutsi armed groups--the RPF 
and the RPA--also committed gross human rights violations during this 
period. Listen to what Human Rights Watch says: ``In their drive for 
military victory and a halt to the genocide, the RPF killed thousands, 
including noncombatants as well as government troops and members of 
militia. As RPF soldiers sought to establish their control over the 
local population, they also killed civilians in numerous summary 
executions and in massacres. They may have slaughtered tens of 
thousands during the four months of combat from April to July [1994].''
  Providing a blanket immigration waiver to two groups whose members 
committed these atrocities is a serious concern. If this provision 
becomes law, individuals responsible for war crimes and other human 
rights violations could find safe haven in our country.
  To be clear, these immigration provisions, known as the terrorism-
related inadmissibility grounds or TRIG bars, are too sweeping and can 
prevent innocent people from coming to our country. The TRIG bars are 
so broadly drafted that they apply not just to groups who have clearly 
engaged in serious human rights violations, like the RPF and RPA, but 
also innocent people who may have provided a meal or a few dollars to a 
member of a foreign rebel group, even a group supported by the United 
States.
  In 2007, I held a hearing on the TRIG bars that featured testimony 
from a nurse from Colombia who was kidnapped by the Revolutionary Armed 
Forces of Colombia--also known as FARC--and forced at gunpoint to 
provide medical care to FARC guerrillas. She escaped and fled to the 
United States in fear for her life. However, she was denied asylum in 
our country because, under the TRIG bars, she was considered to have 
provided material support to terrorists.
  In response to absurd cases like this one, Congress passed bipartisan 
legislation granting the executive branch authority to exempt deserving 
groups or individuals from the TRIG bars. In 2014, the Obama 
administration used this authority to issue exemptions to the TRIG bars 
for insignificant support that was not intended to support terrorist 
activities. These exemptions were designed to protect refugees who 
innocently interacted with a member of an armed rebel group. For 
example, a refugee who gave a bowl of rice or cigarette to a member of 
the Free Syrian Army or paid an opposition group to ensure safe passage 
out of Syria could be exempted from the TRIG bars.
  If individuals associated with the RPF or RPA have been unjustly 
swept up in the TRIG bars, they should be eligible for the existing 
exemptions. Unfortunately, the Trump administration has signaled it 
plans to rescind these waivers. Rather than creating a blanket 
statutory waiver that could benefit individuals that have committed 
serious human rights violations, as the Inhofe amendment would do, 
Congress should come together on a bipartisan basis to oppose the Trump 
administration's efforts to undo the existing exemptions that protect 
innocent refugees.

[[Page S3969]]

  It is also troubling that Congress could provide this kind of special 
immigration benefit to war criminals at a time when the Trump 
administration is deporting immigrants who have lived in this country 
for years and have committed no crimes.
  For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues on the Senate and 
House Armed Services Committees to remove this problematic provision 
from the final conference report.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today the Senate will approve its version 
of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act. It is right 
and fitting to name this bill after the chairman of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, who has for years been a stalwart advocate for our 
military and our national defense.
  Unlike the defense authorization bills of recent years, this bill is 
streamlined and straightforward. It is focused on improving strategic 
Department of Defense thinking and aligning resources to meet that 
strategy. It also conforms to the bipartisan budget agreement reached 
earlier this year.
  I am pleased that this bill renews a commitment to securing America's 
leading edge of technological innovation. This is great news for States 
large and small, including Vermont. The bill includes provisions to 
improve the long-term strategic development and purchasing of 
microelectronics for the defense industry. It includes a partial 
solution to the delays of Federal recognition for members of the Guard 
receiving their State commissions. It fixes the TRICARE dental plan 
management and options that have frustrated Vermonters. It includes 
numerous provisions to support small businesses in the industrial base, 
including to improve cyber security. Building on last year's language, 
the bill adds to the accounting of usage of the long-chain molecules 
that have been found to have dangerous health effects, particularly its 
use in Air Force firefighting foam. These are all appropriate issues to 
be dealt with through the defense authorization bill.
  Like any product of compromise, however, this bill is not perfect. I 
am frustrated that, despite a bipartisan majority of Senators voting in 
support of further debating the bill's treatment of low-yield nuclear 
weapons, we are advancing to a vote on final passage without that 
debate. Low-yield nuclear weapons are dangerous and add nothing to our 
nuclear deterrence. Any administration should at least have to 
specifically ask to build them.
  Similarly, a bipartisan majority of Senators rejected the tabling of 
an amendment to prohibit the indefinite detention of American citizens; 
yet the bill includes no such provision. The underlying bill also 
continues the mistake of the Guantanamo Bay detention mission.
  On balance, the final bill on which the Senate votes today is truly 
bipartisan. I will support this National Defense Authorization Act.
  (At the request of Mr. Cornyn, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam President, I wish to speak about the 
importance of and my strong support for the final passage of the fiscal 
year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, and the reason for 
my absence.
  As we all know, the NDAA addresses many issues including the 
modernization of major weapons systems, security assistance to our 
allies, and significant changes to personnel policy. Our Nation's 
military relies on Congress to fulfill our obligation with the timely 
passage of this legislation. I am proud to support our men and women in 
uniform yet again in the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2019, legislation appropriately named for our dear 
friend and colleague Senator John McCain.
  I deeply regret the need for my absence today. While my record 
reflects the rare nature in which I miss a vote, I did not come to this 
decision lightly. An unfortunate incident at the Fayetteville VA 
Medical Center in Fayetteville, AR, required my presence and advocacy 
on behalf of our Nation's veterans. While untimely, I strongly believe 
it is my congressional duty to ensure that our government fulfills its 
promise to the men and women who have worn the cloth of our Nation. 
Such a requirement demanded my immediate attention today in Arkansas. I 
would like to thank Senators Inhofe, Reed, and McCain, along with their 
staffs, for all their hard work and support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. KING. Madam President, I rise in advance of the discussion that 
will be taking place in a very few minutes on the National Defense 
Authorization Act. I want to compliment and acknowledge the leadership 
of Senator Reed of Rhode Island and Senator Inhofe and, of course, 
Senator McCain, for whom this bill is named. They have provided amazing 
leadership, as the Presiding Officer knows from her membership on the 
committee, by bringing this bill to the floor. I look forward to 
supporting it later this afternoon.


                        Family Separation Policy

  Madam President, I do want to take a few moments to discuss a 
different subject, which is what is going on at our southern border.
  Secure borders and limits on immigration are necessary and justified 
in any country, and that is why there were major border security 
provisions in the comprehensive immigration reform act that passed this 
body by two-thirds--67 votes--in 2013. If that bill had even been taken 
up in the House, I believe it would have passed, it would have been 
signed, and a lot of the problems we are having today around the issue 
of immigration would already be solved.
  I believe in border security. I believe in necessary limits. This is 
a difficult issue--I understand that. It is difficult in part because 
of the proximity of our country to some of the most violent countries 
in the world, with the highest murder rates, countries from which 
people are literally fleeing for their lives. But difficult issues are 
amenable to humane and decent solutions--solutions that take into 
account our values, that take into account the underlying principles 
upon which this country is based. And this is one that could be 
resolved without this drastic policy of separating children from their 
parents.
  I was asked on the way in whether we will do legislation to solve 
this problem. This problem could be resolved by a phone call from the 
President of the United States to the Attorney General. This is not the 
law; this is a policy of enforcement which was adopted by this 
administration in April, implemented in May, and which has brought us 
to the place where 2,000 children have been forcibly separated from 
their parents.
  There are just a few points I want to make.
  No. 1--and I think this is important; this is lost in the 
discussion--asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants. They are coming 
to this country under the law. They are allowed to come to the country 
and then prove their case, and they should have an opportunity to prove 
their case. They are not illegal immigrants. They are being lumped in 
with illegal immigrants. These are almost entirely people who are 
seeking asylum here because they are fleeing violence in their own 
country.
  This country was based on asylum seekers. The Pilgrims were asylum 
seekers. The Catholics who came to Maryland were asylum seekers. The 
Irish who came here as a result of a famine were asylum seekers. The 
Jews who came here in the thirties and forties, during the period of 
the Holocaust, were asylum seekers. I should say that one of the 
darkest periods of this country's history was the turning away of the 
USS St. Louis in the late thirties, where a third of its population of 
Jewish people went back to Europe and died in the Holocaust.
  This country is based upon some basic principles, some of which are 
stated very unequivocally on the base of the Statue of Liberty:

       Give me your tired, your poor,
       Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
       The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
       Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost, to me.
       I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

  That has been the promise of America from the very beginning. We are 
not a country like most other countries in the world--based upon one 
race, one ethnicity, one population that has lived in the same place 
for 1,000 years, one language. In fact, our secret is the people who 
have come here from other places, with their ideas and their energy.

[[Page S3970]]

  I sit in the U.S. Senate seat following four of my illustrious 
predecessors, all of whom are children of immigrants, every single one: 
Edmund Muskie, the son of an immigrant polish tailor, one of the great 
Senators of the 21st century; George Mitchell, majority leader, the son 
of immigrants; and Olympia Snowe, the daughter of a Greek immigrant. 
This is who we are as a country, and we are talking about arresting 
people and locking up their children in cages.
  I have heard various justifications for this:
  We are just following the law.
  No, the law does not require separating children from their parents. 
This is a policy that was adopted by this administration in April and 
implemented in May. This is not required by the law. This is a policy 
decision, and it can be rescinded by a phone call from the President. 
It can be solved this afternoon by a phone call from the President.
  Crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor.
  So is jaywalking. Are we going to have a policy that says we are 
going to separate children from their parents because of jaywalking? It 
doesn't have to be this way.
  Children and their parents can be kept together while we go through 
the legal process of determining whether their asylum claim is valid. 
That is a process that we have, and, yes, it takes too long. That is on 
us because we haven't adequately funded the judicial system to have 
enough judges to hear those claims.
  The next justification I have heard is that it is a deterrent, that 
it will be a deterrent.
  It is only a deterrent if the people who are coming from these 
countries--by the way, very few of them are coming from Mexico. They 
are coming from Central American countries, some of which, as I have 
mentioned, have the highest murder rates in the world. And we are going 
to say: Well, we are going to rip your children away. That word will 
get back, and then you will not come.
  We could do a lot worse. Can you justify anything as a deterrent? Can 
you justify any inhumane treatment? We will torture you if you come 
across the border--that would be a deterrent, but that doesn't make it 
right.
  The next one that I heard is that it is a bargaining chip for 
negotiations. We will bring the Democrats to the table, and that is 
when we will talk about immigration. But we are not going to change 
this policy until then because it is a bargaining chip.
  We do not take children hostage in legislative negotiations, and that 
is what this is. Let's call it what it is. It is literally taking 
children hostage to be a bargaining chip in a legislative negotiation 
on the broad panoply of issues involved in immigration. That is wrong. 
It is a basic principle of everything we hold dear that we don't 
negotiate with hostage-takers. Yet that has been explicitly stated as a 
motivation for this policy.
  The final justification I heard, and frankly the reason I am here 
today because it just tore it for me, is the Bible; that somehow this 
is justified by the Christian Bible, by Romans 13, which says you 
should obey the law. Yes, that is what it says, but it also says the 
law should be based upon love.
  I would add that very provision, Romans 13, was used 150 years ago to 
justify slavery. Would that provision apply in Germany in 1938, where 
the law was exclusively directed at punishing the Jewish people? It was 
legal under the German law. Would that provision say this is OK; we 
don't have to object to it because it is part of what is in the Bible? 
No; of course, not.
  To say that this is somehow justified by Scripture is just ignoring 
the whole message of the Bible and certainly the message of the New 
Testament.
  For me, as a Christian, it all comes down to Matthew 25. The King 
said:

       Come, you who are blessed . . . take your inheritance. . . 
     . For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was 
     thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger 
     and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I 
     was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you 
     came to visit me.

  Then, the righteous said:

       Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty 
     and give you something to drink?

  They went through the whole list and said: We never did any of those 
things. And Jesus said:

       Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire. 
     . . . For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was 
     thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink. . . . Whatever you 
     did not do for one of the least of these, my brothers, you 
     did not do for me.

  I was a stranger, and you took me in. That is what the Gospel talks 
about. That is what we are talking about here, is talking about 
strangers and trying to take them in.
  Of course, it goes without saying that Jesus and Mary escaped from 
the Promised Land because of the threat of violence from King Herod 
into Egypt. What if Egypt had said: No, we are not going to take you 
in. We will send you back to Herod. That is the law. Herod's law is the 
law; we are going to send you back.
  They were asylum seekers, and Egypt took them in, and our Lord and 
Savior was born.
  So don't come to me and tell me this is somehow justified by 
Scripture; it just isn't, under any stretch of the imagination, and it 
can be remedied by a phone call.
  We don't have to negotiate a complicated bill here. We don't have to 
work on something for 3 weeks. A phone call this afternoon from the 
President of the United States to the Attorney General can end this 
obscene practice. Then we can talk about asylum seekers and what the 
rules should be and what the standards should be and how long the 
policy should be and how many judges we need and how long you should be 
able to wait until you get your case adjudicated and all of the other 
complicated issues involved in immigration, but we should not be 
talking about it in the context of children being held hostage.
  So I hope the President will make that phone call, solve this problem 
this afternoon, and then we can get about solving some of the larger 
problems that he and I and everyone else in this body are concerned 
about, but let's not do it with children in cages anywhere in America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moran). The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, as we approach the vote on final passage of 
the fiscal year 2019 national defense authorization bill, I would like 
to make a few closing remarks.
  At the completion of floor debate on the NDAA last year, I remarked 
in my closing statement that I was disappointed in the lack of 
cooperation in the Senate. Senator McCain and I both hoped that last 
year we would be able to return to regular order, but in the end, we 
were disappointed.
  Unfortunately, this year, I and I know many of my colleagues are 
frustrated in the inability to bring up, debate, and vote on worthy 
amendments. For comparison, during consideration of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994, there were 16 rollcall 
votes on amendments. In 1995, during consideration of the fiscal year 
1996 NDAA, there were 20 rollcall votes and amendments. In the 
following year, the fiscal year 1997 NDAA, there were 19 rollcall votes 
and amendments. On this bill, there was a single up-or-down vote on an 
amendment.
  I was one of the few Senators who was able to debate an amendment. It 
was on the congressional oversight of nuclear weapons, which I believe 
is one of the most important and seminal issues not only of this bill 
but of our defense policy today, but the only vote I was able to have 
on this critical issue was a motion to table.
  Despite the deep differences among us, it is my hope that this 
Chamber can return to the collegial ways of the past--and I think that 
is a belief and a hope shared by my colleague Senator Inhofe from 
Oklahoma--and that we can hold an open amendment process that 
guarantees every Senator a right to a full and wholesome debate on 
amendments and those issues that matter most to those Senators. There 
are critical issues that pertain to our national security and the 
welfare of our servicemembers, and they must be addressed through 
bipartisan dialogue and compromise. It is my hope that moving forward 
we can return this Chamber to regular order and hold an open amendment 
process.
  Despite my frustrations with this process, I am pleased with the 
overall

[[Page S3971]]

result of this bill. We successfully incorporated 46 amendments from 
both Republicans and Democrats into the bill. These amendments further 
strengthen the bill and provide additional resources to the Department 
of Defense which allows them to carry out their important mission.
  Looking ahead, the budget agreement that covered the fiscal year 2018 
and fiscal year 2019 NDAAs will expire next year, meaning a return to 
sequestration and budget caps, unless a new agreement is reached. At 
this time when our military is facing readiness shortfalls and numerous 
global threats, we cannot afford a budgetary retrenchment. We must 
continue to work together to address these issues, and I am confident 
and hopeful we will find a way forward.
  I would like to particularly thank Senator Inhofe for his leadership 
throughout the committee markup and throughout this floor process. He 
has ably shepherded this bill and provided invaluable leadership by 
emphasizing a return to regular order, the same note I am sounding 
today. The achievement of this bill would not have been possible 
without him, and I thank him.
  I would also like to thank my staff and the staff of the ranking 
member for their terrific work. They worked tirelessly. They made a 
commitment both of time and intellectual energy that was extraordinary. 
The majority staff, and Senator Inhofe's staff in particular, was 
diligent, bipartisan, thoughtful, and cooperative. They were everything 
you could ask for collegial activity in the Senate.
  Of course, I would like to thank my staff for their invaluable 
expertise and dedication to creating the best bill possible. I would 
like to specifically thank Jody Bennett, Carolyn Chuhta, Jon Clark, 
Jonathan Epstein, Jorie Feldman, Jon Green, Creighton Greene, Ozge 
Guzelsu, Gary Leeling, Kirk McConnell, Maggie McNamara, Bill Monahan, 
Mike Noblet, John Quirk, Arun Seraphin, and Elizabeth King--and also 
wish her a happy birthday.
  I would like to thank the floor staff. They have been exceptionally 
helpful to us. I thank them all on both sides for their insights and 
for their calmness in the face of difficulties and tensions. Without 
them, nothing would be possible.
  Finally, I would like to particularly recognize Chairman John McCain, 
after whom this bill is so aptly named. Senator McCain has provided 
this committee with leadership during difficult times and served as a 
moral compass when considering challenging issues. He has been a 
bulwark for the defense of our country and the men and women of the 
military, and I know he is proud of the passage of this bill.
  John McCain is probably the most demanding person I have ever met, 
but the key to his greatness is, he demands more of himself than anyone 
else, and he gives more of himself than anyone else. That has made him 
not only one of our great Senators, not of this moment but of our 
history, but one of our great American heroes. He is an extraordinary 
gentleman, and today this legislation bearing his name represents, once 
again, his extraordinary contributions to the Nation.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me just agree with the 
comments that were made by Senator Reed. He has been great to work 
with. I am glad he mentioned all the help of his staff. People don't 
realize how, on a bill this size--this is the largest bill we will 
consider probably this year--how much staff is involved. It is both 
Republican and Democratic staff. It is one of the few things we do 
around here that really isn't partisan. I think the Senator from Rhode 
Island and I were only apart from each other on maybe 10 or 11 
amendments. By the way, on amendments, I do want to comment how many 
amendments we took care of during the committee hearing. So we have had 
a lot of activity on the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization 
Act for 2019.
  Throughout the last 2 weeks, we have debated this legislation on the 
Senate floor in an open process. We have said over and over, we want to 
have open amendments, and we want to have people bring amendments down. 
We have a system that is probably not going to be changed, but there is 
going to be some activity this next year by several of us, if we are 
going to be involved in next year's authorization bill for the year 
2020, to see if we can't address a major problem; that is, we have 
allowed a system to take place where 1 person can stop 99 people from 
having an amendment. That is wrong.
  In January, President Trump and Secretary Mattis announced the new 
national defense strategy that rightfully identified that we are 
returning to a world of great power and competition when dominated by 
the capabilities relative to China and Russia. We talked about that, 
the power they have. We have talked about an article that was written 
just recently that said that if we got into a fight of Russia versus 
NATO, most likely NATO would lose to Russia. We have watched China in 
the South China Sea putting together islands where it is almost as if 
they are preparing for World War III. I was there in the South China 
Sea, and our people made it very clear--and I am talking about allies 
of ours--that they are not sure which would win. We have China out 
there illegally building islands and putting us in a position where we 
don't really know what their intentions are. All we know is, everything 
on those islands--we are talking about over 3,000 now--that they are 
put in a position where they are preparing for a world war.
  It is not like it used to be. Now we are in a situation where a 
country can have a rocket that can hit an American city. So times have 
changed. We need to be prepared to respond to threats of terrorism from 
rogue states, like Iran and North Korea. The National Defense Strategy 
is clear. We need to make strategic investments now in the areas where 
we are falling behind--and we are behind.
  Since the release of the National Defense Strategy, I have traveled 
to visit our allies in both Eastern Europe and Asia. They all 
understand the threat of growing aggression from China and Russia. I 
have spoken with our commanders in the field, our military leaders, and 
our troops in the mess halls in Afghanistan and all around the world. 
Perhaps most importantly, you can really get more from them than you 
can from a hearing here in Washington.
  The Senate Armed Services Committee was tasked with implementing the 
national defense strategy. The result is the John S. McCain National 
Defense Authorization Act. We made tough choices about where and how to 
invest our resources, but I am pleased with the work we have done to 
restore America as the leader of the free world.
  We are making the needed investments in training, maintenance, and 
modernization. Any time you are starving the military, those are the 
three areas you see first--maintenance and modernization and, of 
course, that also means training. We are in the process of doing this, 
and that is what this bill is all about. We are changing this. We have 
addressed that by catching up where we were falling behind--artillery, 
hypersonics, the nuclear triad.
  Most people in the real world assume that America has the best system 
of anybody else. Their systems--plural--are better.
  Artillery, for example, is measured by rapid fire and range. In terms 
of rapid fire and range, both Russia and China are better than we are. 
Hypersonics is a new system, a weapon five times the speed of sound. It 
is still under development. We are working on it. However, we are 
behind both China and Russia. They are ahead of us in this training. In 
the nuclear triad, we haven't done anything in the last 10 years, while 
both China and Russia are actually ahead of us. It is not like it used 
to be, where we did have the very best of everything.
  So we are standing up to China by strengthening our position across 
the Pacific region. This bill provides support to our allies who stand 
up against China's military and economic coercion and procures 
deployable airbase systems to enhance credible combat power.
  The NDAA also calls out China for illegally creating fortified 
islands in the South China Sea for military purposes. That is what they 
are for. Nothing is on there, except preparing for some military 
activity. The NDAA modernizes the Committee on Foreign Investment to 
address national security concerns and to stop China from trying to

[[Page S3972]]

steal sensitive technology from the United States companies.
  The NDAA counters Russia's growing aggression and influence across 
Eastern Europe by directing a study on permanently stationing U.S. 
forces in Poland and conducting a study on Russia's maligned influence 
around the world. It continues limitations on U.S.-Russia military 
cooperation, provides defensive lethal aid to Ukraine, and allows the 
U.S. Cyber Command to respond to Russia's continued cyber attacks.
  It keeps faith with our troops by providing a 2.6-percent military 
pay raise, the highest in nearly 10 years, modernizing the officer 
personnel system, and supporting our troops and military families.
  There is no doubt in my mind that this bill will make American 
families safer and will stand up for our democratic values around the 
world.
  I thank my partner in this, the Democratic leader of the committee. 
He talked about the staff that we have been working with and 
complimented them--John McCain's committee staff: Chris Brose, Samantha 
Clark, Rachel Hoff, Mark Montgomery, Erik Swabb, James Hickey, Diem 
Salmon, Greg Lilly, Adam Barker, Augusta Binns-Berkey, Lauren Davis, 
Allen Edwards, Jackie Kerber, Matt Lampert, Allison Lazarus, John 
Lehman, Daniel Lerner, Sean O'Keefe, Brad Patout, Jason Potter, Will 
Quinn, Dustin Walker, Gwyneth Woolwine, Leah Brewer, Gabriel Noronha, 
Nick Hatcher, Katie Magnus, Lindsay Markle, Cara Mumford, Madison 
Sparber, and Arthur Tellis; from our staff: Luke Holland, Tony Pankuch, 
Leacy Burke, Adrienne Jackson, Chris Ryan, and Laurie Fitch; and the 
floor staff: Laura Dove, Robert Duncan, Chris Tuck, Tony Hanagan, Chloe 
Barz, Mike Smith, and Katherine Kilroy. They have actually worked long, 
long hours. On a bill like this, they are out there all night long.
  But let me say, as I started, that there is something wrong with a 
system that will allow one Member of the Senate to preclude 99 Members 
from getting their amendments through. This is not right. I am not sure 
how to resolve it, but I would just say--and I think that my good 
friend from Rhode Island would agree--that we can work out something to 
keep that from happening or to minimize it.
  It is not quite as bad as it sounds, when we say we didn't have any 
amendments on the floor. We had countless amendments in committee. We 
had many amendments on the floor. There were 47 amendments that were 
folded into the bill, and that is after it came to the floor. So we did 
consider those, but we didn't vote on any amendments, and that is what 
we should be doing. We stand here and plead with people to bring their 
amendments down so we can have an open amendment process, and then one 
person objects. There is something wrong with that system.
  So I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee for their continued leadership. I thank my friend 
from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, for his leadership and commitment to 
bipartisan collaboration throughout the process. We shared a commitment 
to open debate and amendments.
  Secondly, and most significant, I recognize the chairman of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator McCain, for his leadership. 
Most of the stuff in this bill has come through the deliberation and 
leadership of Senator McCain. We can clearly see that this bill 
reflects his priorities and policy initiatives he has fought for as our 
chairman. His commitment to government oversight and accountability and 
American leadership around the world is evident on every page. We miss 
his voice in the Chamber today, but today's vote is a true tribute to 
his lasting legacy to our Nation, and I urge our colleagues to join me.
  We are going to cast two votes. At some point in this process, I am 
going to make another effort. We have a list of 47 amendments that have 
been cleared on both sides, and Democrats and Republicans are all for 
this. We want to have an opportunity to have these passed in a package. 
I am hopeful that there will not be a Member of this body who will 
object and object to 47 people having their amendments, which have been 
cleared, actually pass.
  We are getting close to the time when we will be voting. I think 
there ought to be one last shot--maybe not. This is a very significant 
vote coming up.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Vote on Motion to Waive

  Under the previous order, the question occurs on agreeing to the 
motion to waive the point of order made under section 4106 of H. Con. 
Res. 71.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. 
Cassidy), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. 
Boozman) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. 
Duckworth), and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 81, nays 14, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 127 Leg.]

                                YEAS--81

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--14

     Barrasso
     Corker
     Enzi
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Kennedy
     Lee
     Markey
     Merkley
     Paul
     Perdue
     Sanders
     Warren
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Boozman
     Cassidy
     Duckworth
     McCain
     Shaheen
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 81, the nays are 
14.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have a bipartisan list of amendments 
that have been cleared from both sides. We have been talking about 
wanting to have these presented, and there is no objection to any of 
them. So I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the adoption of 
the substitute amendment, the amendments be called up en bloc. There 
are 44 amendments. I further ask consent that these amendments be 
agreed to en bloc and the motions to reconsider be considered made and 
laid upon the table. I send the list to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have no 
objection to voting on the amendments if we allow all of them. We have 
an amendment, and 68 Members of this body said that no American should 
be detained without a trial. If you put that amendment, which 68 
Senators support, in the package, I will be happy to have consent. If 
we don't have it in, I will continue to object. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Under the previous order, all postcloture time has expired.

[[Page S3973]]

  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  Mr. BARRASSO. 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. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. 
Cassidy), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. 
Boozman) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) 
and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 85, nays 10, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 128 Leg.]

                                YEAS--85

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--10

     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Lee
     Markey
     Merkley
     Paul
     Sanders
     Warren
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Boozman
     Cassidy
     Duckworth
     McCain
     Shaheen
  The bill (H.R. 5515), as amended, was passed.

                          ____________________