To improve the amendment.

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of S. 2943, which the clerk will
report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

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

Pending:

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

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

Amendment No. 4603 Withdrawn

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 The amendment is withdrawn.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

Amendment No. 4670 to Amendment No. 4607

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

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

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

(Purpose: To improve the amendment)

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

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

(a) Ineffectiveness of Superseded Requirements.--Sections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

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

[[Page S3836]]

our military and our civilians who are over there, whose work does save
lives.
The Senator from South Carolina has been there many, many, many times
and has worked with these interpreters. So I will let him speak on this
issue. But really, by not allowing this amendment--where the vote would
probably be 99 to 1 because we reached an agreement with the chairman
of the Judiciary Committee and also with Senator Sessions--we are
unable. We are unable to provide for the ability of these interpreters
to come to the United States because of an unrelated amendment.
I say to my colleagues, that is not the way the Senate should
operate. Each amendment should be judged on its own merits or demerits
and debated and voted on. So this practice--and we are about to see it
on a managers' package now from the other side because their amendment
is being objected to--is that we don't move forward with legislation
that literally is going to cause the loss of innocent people's lives,
whose only crime is that they cooperated and assisted the United States
of America and our military in carrying out their duties in
Afghanistan. That to me--that to me--is a shameful chapter. It is a
shameful comment on the United States of America and honoring our
commitments to the brave people who helped us and literally saved
American lives.
I ask my colleague from South Carolina, who actually has dealt with
these people on many, many occasions, what his view is on this
particular issue.
Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator from Arizona.
I want to put this issue and what we are trying to do in the context
of what has happened in the last couple of days and what I think is
going to happen in the future.
No. 1, there is strong bipartisan support to increase the number of
visas available to Afghans who have actively helped us in the war
against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The reason this is so
important is that it is impossible for America to defend herself
without partners.
To those who suggest you can win the war against radical Islam
without partners, you have no idea what you are talking about. To those
who suggest we can't let people come to our country after they risk
their lives protecting our soldiers and civilians in Afghanistan and
who are protecting us, then you don't understand the war at all. This
is radical Islam against the world, not just the Islamic faith. The
world should be at war with radical Islam.
As to what happened in Florida, there is no doubt in my mind that
these young people were killed by a radical Islamic sympathizer because
they were gay. In a radical Islam world, gay people are sentenced to
death just simply for being gay. They are thrown off the roofs of homes
by ISIL inside of Syria and Iraq. So don't make any mistake about it,
the reason these people were killed is because radical Islam judges
them to be unworthy of life.
Please make no mistake about it, radical Islamists would kill
everybody in this Chamber because we will not bend to their will in
terms of religion. Please make no mistake about it, most people in the
faith are not buying what these nut jobs are selling.
I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan 37 times, and I can tell you
thousands have died fighting radical Islam in Iraq, in Syria, and in
Afghanistan because they don't want to live under the thumb of
religious Nazis. So the thousands who have helped us as interpreters
and who have gone outside the wire with us to make us a more effective
fighting force, they have literally risked their lives and their
families' lives, and if we don't give them an out, an exit, they are
going to get killed, and it is going to be hard to have anybody help us
in the future.
I have told Senator Lee, whom I have a strong disagreement with about
his approach to the war--basically saying an American citizen has to be
treated as a common criminal, not an enemy combatant, for collaborating
with the enemy--we have our differences, but I have removed my
objection to his amendment with the understanding that I get a vote on
my amendment--the Heitkamp amendment--about the Ex-Im Bank, where
thousands of jobs are being lost. I want to put on the record that I am
ready to let Senator Reed move forward if we can get a vote on Ex-Im
Bank, where thousands of jobs are at stake.
But we are not voting on any of this. The managers' package is not
being voted on. So this is a low point right now. There is very serious
business that is being conducted in the Senate that can't move forward
because individuals have decided: If I can't have everything I want,
nobody is going to get anything.
The bottom line is, the managers' package should move forward. There
are a lot of good things in that package. There is a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution in that package, coauthored by Senator Jack Reed and
me, urging President Obama to keep the 9,800 American troops in
Afghanistan until conditions warrant their withdrawal; that if he
decides to keep the force in place, we support him; if we go to 5,500,
Afghanistan is going to fall apart. That is a really big statement in a
bipartisan fashion.
As to what happened in Orlando and why it is so important, I have
been trying to fight a war, not a crime. For years now, I have been
suggesting that the difference between a war and a crime is important.
The FBI closed the file on this man because they didn't have enough
evidence to charge him with a crime. My goal is to prevent terrorist
attacks, not respond to them.
Here is the world I would like to construct; that if by your
actions--not by being a Muslim or being this or being that--if by the
way you behave and the way you act and the way you talk and the way you
engage, you should be treated differently. If you are expressing
sympathy to ISIL and other radical Islamic groups, if you threaten your
coworkers, telling them that your family is a member of Al Qaeda, if
you are associated with a known terrorist and you attend a mosque that
is trying to radicalize people, the FBI should never close the file
until they are sure you are not a threat, in terms of attacking our
homeland. That is the difference between fighting a war and fighting a
crime. I am trying to prevent the next attack, not respond to it.
This is not a gun control issue, folks. If gun control could protect
the country from attacks by radical Islamists, there would be no Paris.
The French have the strongest gun laws on the planet and over 100
French citizens died at the hands of Islamists using weapons: bombs,
planes, guns. It is not the instrumentality, it is the attitude. So
this is not a gun control problem. We are at war and we are treating it
like a crime.
On the Republican side, this is not about banning all Muslims. This
man was an American citizen born in Queens. This idea of shutting
America off to everybody in the Muslim faith makes it harder to win the
war, not easier. We need partners in the faith to destroy radical
Islam. It is through that partnership that we will make America safe.
So when people call for gun control, you don't understand what is going
on here. This is not a gun control issue. If it were, there would be no
attacks in Europe. This is a radical Islamic effort--sometimes
individually, sometimes collectively--to break our will, destroy our
way of life, and we are not dealing with it sufficiently. We should
have an approach to this problem as though we are at war. We should
follow people who are sympathetic to the enemy, monitor their behavior
to prevent what happened in Florida, gather intelligence. We should
never close a file against a suspected sympathizer to ISIL because we
can't prove a crime. We should keep the file open as long as they are a
threat.
I appreciate all Senator McCain has done to strengthen the military.
To those who voted against increasing military spending by $18 billion
at a time that the military is being gutted, you made a huge mistake.
If you want to deal with radical Islam, destroy it over there before it
continues to come here, and to do that we need a stronger military. Our
Navy and Army are going to be the size of 1940 and 1950, respectively.
We are cutting the Marine Corps. We are cutting our ability to defend
ourselves, and this $18 billion amendment would restore money to help
the military more effectively deal with radical Islam over there so we
don't have to fight it here.
To those who look at this as a gun control issue, you are missing the

[[Page S3837]]

point. To those who think we should not restore spending, you are not
listening to our commanders. Our commanders are begging for more money
to more effectively support the force in a struggle we can't afford to
lose. To those who think we should declare war on the Islamic faith
itself, you have no idea how dangerous that model is. To those who want
to close a file because we can't prove a crime when we know the person
we are looking at has weird, strange beliefs and is actually acting on
these beliefs, then you are making a huge mistake.
Until America gets our attitude adjusted, until we change our
policies, until we restore our ability to defend ourselves, this is
going to continue.
The President continues to marginalize this, downplaying the threats.
This was directed. I don't have any idea that al-Baghdadi called this
guy up and said: Go to a night club and shoot on this day, but I know
al-Baghdadi has called on everybody sympathetic to his cause to attack
during the holy month of Ramadan; attack in place, don't come to Syria.
So that is a direction.
It was clear to me, this man had been interviewed on three separate
occasions by the FBI, that he was expressing sympathy and allegiance to
radical Islam, and that he was associated with a man who went from
Florida to Syria, back to Florida, back to Syria, who became a suicide
bomber for al-Nusra. There is no way in hell this file should have ever
been closed because of political correctness. It should have stayed
open until we were sure he was not a threat to us. The goal is to
prevent these things, not react to them.
I want to tell you right now that the things we are not talking about
in this bill and we can't vote on in this bill are making us less safe.
Not allowing these Afghan interpreters--who have risked their lives to
protect us by helping us over there--to come to America in larger
numbers is going to make it harder to have partners. By insisting that
these budget cuts stay in place and not increasing military spending at
a time of desperate need is a huge mistake. To my friends on the left
and the Libertarians who want to turn the war into crime, it is the
biggest mistake of all.
So this is very sad that the U.S. Senate seems to not be able to
adjust to the reality that exists and that we all have our petty
grievances and we can't move forward as one to strengthen the military,
to give our intelligence community the tools they need to protect us,
and to have a game plan to win a war we can't afford to lose. In my
opinion, we are not having votes that are very important, for no good
reason, and this will come back to haunt us.
Last week--and I will end with this--Senator McCain and I were
talking about the threats we face. I have been trying the best I can to
articulate the difference between fighting a crime and fighting a war.
I know what the enemy wants. They want to destroy our way of life and
everything we hold near and dear. They want to kill anything that is
different. They want everything that America refuses to give them. We
are never going to give them what they want, which is the ability to be
yourself, the ability to worship God the way you choose, if at all, the
ability to be different, the ability to speak your mind and to elect
your leaders. That is what they want. We can't afford to give it to
them, and we don't have the right attitude or the policies to end a
war. It will end one day. People are not buying what radical Islam is
selling within the faith. But the longer it goes on, the more
endangered we are, and our policies are not working. I am trying my
best to change them in a responsible way, consistent with our
Constitution, consistent with our values.
I find myself on the floor of the Senate 48 hours after the largest
attack since 9/11 unable to move forward on things that matter.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, section 578 of this year's National
Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, is an inappropriate place from which
to impose mandates on nearly 20,000 public elementary and secondary
schools in 1,225 public school districts across the country.
Legislative language is included in the NDAA this year that dictates
disruptive policies on public schools that would create a complicated
and confusing system where one school system follows established
background checks under State or local law, while a neighboring county
must now comply with a new unfunded Federal mandate. This language
should not be included in the final version of this bill.
The U.S. Senate takes seriously the goal of ensuring the safety of
the more than 50 million children in our 100,000 public schools,
including federally connected children. These issues have been and
should be discussed, debated, and legislated within the appropriate
committees of jurisdiction. Measures related to education are within
the jurisdiction of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Committee under Rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, as well
as within the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Education and the
Workforce under Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives for
the 114th Congress.
So while it may be appropriate for the Armed Services Committee to
dictate background check policies for the 172 schools operated by the
Department of Defense, it is not appropriate to use the authorization
bill for the Department of Defense to impose mandates on nearly 20,000
public elementary and secondary schools in 1,225 public school
districts across the country.
These 20,000 public schools, out of 100,000 total, are being singled
out because they receive ``Impact Aid'' funds from the Federal
Government under title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act, ESEA, of 1965. The purpose of the program is to ``fulfill the
Federal responsibility to assist with the provision of educational
services to federally connected children in a manner that promotes
control by local educational agencies with little or no Federal or
State involvement.''
According to the Government Accountability Office, 46 States already
require background checks of some kind for all public school employees,
and 42 States have established professional standards or codes of
conduct for school personnel. Section 578 of the NDAA would create
confusion for all those States and localities, as they are forced to
navigate two sets of potentially conflicting background checks
policies.
Mr. KAINE. Madam President, today I wish to speak about the fiscal
year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA. I want to thank
Senator McCain and Senator Reed for all their work on this Defense
bill. This year's floor process has been challenging to say the least,
but with their leadership and that of their staff directors, Chris
Brose and Liz King, I am confident we can find a meaningful path
forward.
I supported this bill out of committee in hopes of having a vigorous
debate on some of the proposals I had expressed concern over regarding
Defense reform. It was my belief that the public release of this bill
would invite greater scrutiny by officials in the Department of Defense
to inform floor debate. In anticipation of their concern, I again
submitted an amendment that I had offered in committee to initiate a
commission on Defense reform to assist Congress in considering future
legislation. I have been surprised at the absence of comments about
many of the reform proposals. This has contributed to a sense that the
concepts were welcome and being embraced by the Department. It wasn't
until the administration's response was released, in the midst of the
bill being on the Senate floor, that concern was finally noted.
Despite my belief that some of our proposals lack sufficient analysis
and have gone too far, I do share the chairman's concern over whether
the Department has the ability to adapt and remain successful in
today's security environment. I am also concerned that the Department
may in fact be mired in duplicative process and complicated
organizational designs. Many of the witnesses in front of the Armed
Services Committee testified to these facts, but several went on to
recommend caution.
On November 10, 2015 in front of a hearing by this committee, Jim
Thomas from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Analysis said, ``all
of these ideas would require detailed analysis to fully understand
their strengths and avoid outcomes that might inadvertently leave us
worse off.'' At that same hearing, we heard from James Locher, a former
staff member of the Senate Armed Services Committee during the
Goldwater-Nichols reform, who stated

[[Page S3838]]

``pinpointing problems was the committee's sole focus for eighteen
months. As part of this thorough process, the committee staff produced
a 645-page staff study with detailed analyses of each problem area. . .
. a hasty reform without a deep appreciation for the origins of the
behaviors that currently limit Pentagon effectiveness would be a
mistake.'' Additional comments by witnesses like the Honorable David
Walker, ``there needs to be a fundamental review and reassessment of
the current organizational structure and personnel practices,'' or
former Under Secretary of Defense Michele Flournoy, ``it is imperative
that we think through the second and third order effects of any changes
proposed. . . . great care should be taken to hear the full range of
views and consider the unintended consequences,'' should have provided
the necessary direction and caution to this committee to pursue a
deliberative, well-researched, and open approach.
Many of the reform provisions were drafted by the committee's very
skilled professional staff. While I have the full confidence that they
crafted proposals to address various challenges in the Department, it
is ultimately the responsibility of the members to fully understand
them. Despite the numerous hearings and countless witnesses, the only
theme that emerged was that reform was needed interspersed with a few
conceptual suggestions. To date, no study has proposed the legislation
contained within this bill. No officials offered their views for
consideration until the bill was on the Senate floor.
In the absence of a debate on the merits of an independent study,
investigative work, or official Department views, I suspect many of my
colleagues do not have confidence that the proposals address the
Department's challenges. Should we require the chairman of the Joint
Chiefs to consult with and seek the advice of others? Should the
headquarters be reduced in addition to previous reductions? Is an
additional 15 percent of staff adequate in a time of war or crisis?
Will the new Under Secretary for Research and Engineering make the
Department's acquisition process run more efficiently? Last year we
removed a pay increase for general officers; this year, we reduced
their number by 25 percent. The combination of these two provisions
makes me wonder whether we are doing all we can to cultivate the next
Eisenhower, Halsey, Abrams, or Dunford.
We made significant reforms in previous years empowering acquisition
professionals to have flexibility and offer service chiefs greater
ownership of their acquisition programs. We have also charged the
Department with necessary authorities to ``hire top talent'' in an
attempt to drive innovation. Many of us in the Senate have demanded a
more comprehensive military strategy in countering the myriad of
threats around the globe. In addition, this bill encourages numerous
outreach and coordination programs with our allies and partners. These
requests are not hollow or zero-sum. People are required to assist our
service chiefs with acquisition programs. People develop more
comprehensive doctrines and offset strategies. Hiring and retaining
top-talent means just that.
What impact will the reorganization of the Department and significant
changes in personnel policies have on our operations in the midst of a
two-front cold war and expanding conflict in the Middle East? Do we
challenge the advice our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is providing? How
do we get ``top talent'' if each spring we reorganize and cut our
Department of Defense workforce? How will a reduction in general and
flag officers impact current and future senior officers? What are the
secondary effects to changes in combatant command responsibilities? How
will our allies and adversaries interpret the reduction or
disappearance of general officers in overseas billets? I submit that
most of my colleagues do not know the answers to these questions, but I
would encourage them to consider them prior to taking similar drastic
action in the future.
I share the chairman's desire to improve the organization and
capability of the Department of Defense. I know he has reached a
comfort level with the reform proposals contained within, that in time
I may better understand their impacts. However, I am mindful of the
cautions relayed by many of our witnesses. We should take our
independent oversight responsibility very seriously. I remain committed
to working with my colleagues in a bipartisan fashion and seek a more
measured and informed approach to any legislation that has the
potential to negatively impact the very Department we seek to improve.
It is in this spirit that I offered my amendment on establishing a
commission to study Defense reform.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, if we can get consent, and individual
Senators will relinquish their objections, the Senate is ready to vote
on the Shaheen amendment on special immigrant visas for Afghan
interpreters, which will save lives, the Moran amendment on Guantanamo,
the Gillibrand amendment on the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the
Murray amendment on cryopreservation of eggs and sperm, the Corker
amendment to authorize the activities of the State Department. We are
ready to debate and vote on all of those.
So I hope that if there is objection, the Senators involved will
relinquish their objections so we can move forward with those
amendments and have final passage.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be
in order to offer amendment No. 4310, notwithstanding rule XXII, and
the Senate vote in relation to the amendment; and that the amendment be
subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold, with no second-degree
amendments in order prior to the vote.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, with the greatest reluctance, I object
on behalf of one Member on this side. I object.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, could I also say, as I object--reserving
the right to object--the Gillibrand amendment, I do not support, but
the Gillibrand amendment deserves debate and a vote in this body. It is
a serious issue of the utmost seriousness in the military. The Chair
certainly understands that. It has to do with sexual assaults in the
military, and it deserves the attention of the entire U.S. Senate--
debate and vote. Unfortunately, there is objection.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I rise to speak about the
amendment.
Under our current military justice system, when a servicemember is
accused of sexual assault, the decision to prosecute isn't actually
made by a trained prosecutor or a lawyer of any kind. In fact, it is
made by a colonel or a brigadier general or another high-ranking
military officer.
Our commanders are the best in the world when it comes to tactics and
strategy, but most of them have little to no experience in legal or
criminal matters. And why should they have that experience? Our
commanders are not prosecutors. They are not lawyers. They are
warfighters, and their job is to keep our country safe, not make legal
judgments about whether to prosecute a rape.
The current military justice system has failed our sexual assault
survivors for too long.
This amendment very simply takes the decision about whether to
prosecute these crimes and gives it to trained, experienced,
independent military prosecutors.
We have all the evidence we need that this problem has not gotten
better in the last year. We have more data. We have looked at more case
files. We have heard from more survivors. It is clear little has
changed, despite the Department's persistent claims that things are
getting better, that they are making progress.
When the Department of Defense estimates that there are 20,000
servicemembers who are sexually assaulted in a year, that is not
progress. When 8 out of every 10 military sexual assault survivors
don't report the crime, that is not progress. When 62 percent of
survivors are being retaliated against, that is not progress. When more
than half of those retaliation cases--58 percent of them--are
perpetrated by someone in the chain of command, that is

[[Page S3839]]

not progress. When the percentage of survivors willing to report openly
has declined for the past 5 years, that is not progress. When it was
confirmed by the Associated Press that the Pentagon blatantly misled
the Senate in order to skew our debate, that is perhaps the ultimate
sign that there has been no progress.

Our military justice system is broken. It is failing our members. And
no matter how many marginal reforms we make, as long as commanders with
no legal experience are continuing to make important legal decisions on
whether to prosecute violent sex crimes, we are not going to solve the
problem. Once and for all, let's take the decision to prosecute these
crimes and give it to trained, independent military prosecutors. Let's
give our military servicemembers a justice system that is worthy of
their service.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, we have cleared the following amendments
to go by voice vote on this side. I understand there are objections on
the other side to this list. I want the record to reflect what is on
the table from this side. I dislike getting into this back-and-forth
because it really serves no purpose, but I ask unanimous consent that
the managers' package as portrayed here be printed in the Record.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the printing?
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

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

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.

Mass Shooting in Orlando

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I want to start by offering my
condolences to the families and loved ones of the victims of Sunday's
heinous attack in the city of Orlando and to everyone who was affected
by this terrible tragedy and act of terror.
While our hearts are with the families and the communities right now,
in the coming days we should have a robust debate about how we can all
come together to do everything possible to prevent tragedies like that
from happening again.
Madam President, I want to turn to the bill we are considering today,
the National Defense Authorization Act, which has been described as one
that will modernize the military health system and give the men and
women of our military better quality care, better access, and a better
experience. It has been described as upholding commitments to our
servicemembers. I wish I could stand here and say that I agree with
that 100 percent, but there is a glaring problem in this bill. It is a
problem that really cuts against the idea that our country should be
there for the men and women of our military, who risk so much on our
behalf, no matter what.
Go to page 1,455 of this massive bill. Buried in a funding chart,
there is one line that would zero out a new program intended to help
men and women in our military who suffer catastrophic injuries while
fighting on our behalf. I don't know how this line got in there. I
don't know who thought it was a good idea. I don't know why, but I do
know what this is: It is absolutely wrong, and we ought to fix it. That
is why I have come to the Senate floor repeatedly over the past week to
urge my colleagues to correct this shameful change, and with the clock
running down on this bill, now is the time to act.
Let me give this some context. Six months ago the Pentagon announced
a pilot program to offer our servicemembers who are getting ready to
deploy an opportunity at cryopreservation; in other words, freezing
their eggs or sperm. It gave deploying servicemembers not just the
ability to have reproductive options in the event they are grievously
injured but some deserved peace of mind. It meant they don't have to
worry about choosing between defending their country or a chance at
having a family someday. This new program was met with widespread
praise and relief. It reflected a basic level of respect for
servicemembers who are willing to risk suffering catastrophic injuries
on our behalf.
I was hoping this new program was a step we could build on, a move in
the right direction, an important part of our larger work to help our
warriors who have sustained grievous injuries achieve their dream of
starting a family. That is why I was so disturbed when I learned this
bill would move us in the other way.
Despite what some of my colleagues have been saying, my amendment
very deliberately states that it will not divert money from any other
important health programs.
I am here again today to ask unanimous consent to have a vote on my
amendment that would restore this pilot program. It is hard to imagine
any of my colleagues standing up to say that men and women who are
willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country and for all of
us should be denied a shot at their dream of a family. I am hopeful we
can have a vote on this, and I encourage my colleagues to support it
and step away from what would be a truly shameful mistake.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to offer
amendment No. 4490, relating to fertility treatments, and that the
Senate vote in relation to the amendment, with no second-degree
amendments in order prior to the vote.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, with reluctance--and I apologize to the
Senator from Washington. This is another amendment that deserves debate
and a vote.
Another amendment that has not been brought up that deserves debate
and a vote is the issue of women being registered for Selective
Service. I want to make it very clear that I have wanted and this body
wanted a vote on whether women should be registered for Selective
Service, and it was not allowed--not by this individual but only one.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Indiana be recognized,
in addition to my time, for 3 minutes----
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the pending
request?
Mr. McCAIN. And that the 3 minutes be taken out of Senator Reed's
time, to the Senator from Indiana.
Mrs. MURRAY. Is there objection to my request?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the pending
request?
Mr. McCAIN. I object.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Is there objection to the request from the Senator from Arizona?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 4670, as Modified

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

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

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

(a) Ineffectiveness of Superseded Requirements.--Sections
1036 and 1037 shall have no force or effect, and the
amendments proposed to be made by section 1037 shall not be
made.
(b) In General.--Any competition for a contract for the
provision of launch services

[[Page S3840]]

for the evolved expendable launch vehicle program shall be
open for award to all certified providers of evolved
expendable launch vehicle-class systems.
(c) Award of Contracts.--In awarding a contract under
subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense--
(1) subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), and notwithstanding
any other provision of law, may, during the period beginning
on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on
December 31, 2022, award the contract to a provider of launch
services that intends to use any certified launch vehicle in
its inventory without regard to the country of origin of the
rocket engine that will be used on that launch vehicle; and
(2) may award contracts utilizing an engine designed or
manufactured in the Russian Federation for only phase 1(a)
and phase 2 evolved expendable launch vehicle procurements.
(3) Limitation.--The total number of rocket engines
designed or manufactured in the Russian Federation and used
on launch vehicles for the evolved expendable launch vehicle
program shall not exceed 18.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Madam President, I will try to be very brief. I know time
is constricted.
When I first came to the Senate, we had Members on both sides who had
principled positions on any number of issues, but we rarely, if ever,
because of our principled stand, denied the opportunity for debate and
vote. The Senate is here for the purpose of debating and voting.
Sometimes we win, and sometimes we lose. The consequences are recorded,
and the bill goes forward--as this one would--to be combined with the
House, to go to conference, and finally issue a resolution.
We are not talking about just any piece of legislation here; we are
talking about the national security and national defense for our
Nation. There are important issues that need to be debated and need to
be voted on. Yet we are denied that opportunity. Someone on our side
was denied that opportunity. The other side has every right to say:
Well, if you are going to play that game, we are going to play that
game. That is not how the Senate should operate.
The Senator from New York and the Senator from Washington on the
Democratic side have principled amendments. I don't support the
amendment from the Senator from New York, but it ought to be debated
and it ought to be voted on and it ought to be worked through. That is
why we are sent here. No wonder the public across the Nation is so
frustrated with us--because we are in total stalemate.
Senator McCain and Senator Reed have made every possible effort to
move this process forward. Yet here we are. As we know, under the
procedures, one person has the right to stop anything from going
forward if they use those procedures, and that has happened. It is very
unfortunate.
In comparison to my time here earlier when we functioned as the U.S.
Senate, we are in total dysfunction because people are not willing to
go forward and debate and accept the fact that they win or they lose
but the process goes forward.
I thank my colleague from Arizona and colleague from Rhode Island for
the opportunity to speak, and I yield back.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to use 1 minute
of debate time from the Democratic side.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. I would like to say that my friend from Indiana, who has
been a Member of this body for many years and has served in a variety
of functions for this Nation, is exactly right. We are now in a
situation where, because someone doesn't get a vote on their amendment,
everybody else's amendment is not agreed to. That is not the way the
Senate was intended to function. That is not the way the Senate should
function.
We just heard of two amendments that I strongly object to--both of
them--but I want debate and votes on them. Unfortunately, we now have a
situation, frankly, on both sides where unless people get their
amendment, nobody gets their amendment.
We are now, among other things, putting the lives of the interpreters
who have served this Nation and saved American lives in danger by
refusing to take up the Shaheen amendment, which allows some of these
people to come to the United States of America. When some of them start
dying, my friends--and they will, because they get the night letters
that they are going to be assassinated, they and their families--I hope
they understand what is at stake here, and I certainly wouldn't want
that on my conscience.
In addition to my friend Lindsey Graham's comments about Paris--and
we will have plenty of time to talk about it--my favorite quote of all
that epitomizes the failure of this President is from January 2014:
``The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think it is accurate,
is if a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn't make them Kobe
Bryant.'' My friends, that statement will live in infamy. That will go
down with ``peace in our time.'' ``If a JV team puts on Lakers
uniforms, that doesn't make them Kobe Bryant.'' ISIS is the same as a
JV team putting on a Lakers uniform. There has been nothing that I know
of more revealing of the attitude and policies of this administration,
which is directly responsible, in my view, for the ultimate conclusion
of what happened in Orlando.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I am once again on the Senate floor in a
series of conversations we have had with my colleagues about the
importance of my amendment I would like pending to this national
defense authorization bill.
I am discouraged and disappointed that over the weekend no resolution
on a variety of issues has been reached, and therefore there would be
objection once again if I offered this amendment.
What I am attempting to do and what we have talked about so many
times here on the floor and in the hallways of Congress is that Kansans
generally are opposed to the closing of Guantanamo Bay as a detention
facility and particularly opposed to bringing these detainees to the
United States and especially opposed to bringing the detainees to Fort
Leavenworth, KS. Unfortunately, this bill includes an amendment offered
in committee that allows for the design and planning and construction
of a facility, and my amendment is the simple removal of those
provisions from this legislation.
It is clear to me that throughout the entire time of the
administration of this President, this administration has been unable
to provide any cohesive, comprehensive, legally justifiable closure and
relocation plan. Yet this plan authorizes the planning and design.
So I rise to once again express my dissatisfaction and anger with the
Senate for its inability to do its job. Whether or not my amendment
would prevail at the moment is not the issue; it is whether or not
there can even be a vote on what I consider to be a very important
issue to Kansas and to the country.
I appreciate the efforts by the chairman of the committee, who has
assured me that he supports this amendment, and through no fault of his
own, we are unable to take a vote to demonstrate that support in the
Senate.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I say to the Senator from Kansas, we had
an agreement to have this taken by voice vote, just as we had an
agreement to take up the Shaheen amendment as well, with overwhelming
support in the Senate to save the lives of these interpreters.
Unfortunately, one or two individual Senators blocked any progress on
that.
I want to assure the Senator from Kansas that we will do what is
necessary to ensure that this amendment is enacted into law.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional
minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. Madam President, I wish to underscore what the chairman has
said. We worked very closely with Senator Moran, Senator Shaheen, and
many others, including Senator Gillibrand and Senator Murray, to come
up with a package.
As the chairman announced previously, if this package had moved, it

[[Page S3841]]

would have also unlocked numerous other amendments that we had cleared
on both sides. But, unfortunately, because of the objection of an
individual whom the chairman has cited, we are now coming to final
passage.
With that, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, all
postcloture time on S. 2943 has expired.

Vote on Amendment No. 4670, as Modified

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

Vote on Amendment No. 4607, as Amended

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 98 Leg.]

YEAS--85

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

NAYS--13

Crapo
Cruz
Gillibrand
Leahy
Lee
Markey
Merkley
Paul
Reid
Risch
Sasse
Warren
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Boxer
Sanders

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

____________________