Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. Mr. President, it is Thursday, and that means it is the afternoon when I get to talk about someone in my State who is doing a great job for the State,…
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. President, it is Thursday, and that means it is the afternoon when I get to talk about someone in my State who is doing a great job for the State, and oftentimes for the country--someone who is really making a difference. As the Presiding Officer and the pages know, I like to refer to this person as the ``Alaskan of the Week.'' It is one of my favorite parts of the week in the Senate, being able to talk about someone who has made a real difference.
When I give this speech every week, I like to talk about what is going on in Alaska. It is a beautiful State. It is the biggest State-- we all know that--in the country. The State is fully in bloom. Its tourists are flocking north by the tens of thousands to view the wildlife, glaciers, mountains, to eat our delicious seafood, take in amazing views through hikes, and have an adventure.
I want to make sure that everyone who is watching in the Galleries or on TV on C-SPAN--you have to come to Alaska. You will have the trip of a lifetime, guaranteed. Come on up.
What is truly impressive about my State is the people who live there and the sense of community we have there. Alaska isn't always the easiest place to live. It is far from the lower 48 States. The weather can be extreme, but, as a result, the people in the communities bond, and they work together, particularly in some of our most remote communities. We are one big community in Alaska, even though our State is so big.
Every community in Alaska and America needs to be able to share reliable, credible information. On that topic, there has been quite a lot of negative attention paid to the national media, in particular, these past few years. Some of it is merited; nobody is perfect, right? But the vital role of local journalism and how that plays in different communities across our country haven't been talked about nearly enough. We all know this, and in many ways we all benefit from the thousands of local reporters who are working in our country, day in and day out, reporting great factfinding stories and working hard. I believe we should all be saluting them for doing this important work, and that is what we are doing here today.
I would like to introduce Ed Schoenfeld, a reporter in Alaska who is our Alaskan of the Week and who has been reliably reporting the news from Southeast Alaska for 37 years. He recently took a well-earned retirement. Well done, Ed. You are our Alaskan of the Week.
Let me talk a little bit about him. He hitchhiked to Fairbanks when he was 20 years old for a little trip, and as so many do, he promised himself that when he had the opportunity, he would go back to Alaska. That opportunity came in 1979 when the program director position opened up in the public broadcasting station KTOO in Juneau, AK.
Now, Alaska public radio was and still is, in many ways, renowned across the country for its local reporting and for its crucial link to rural communities who need that reporting throughout our State--and need it badly. Interestingly, I think, because of the challenges it presents to reporters, some of National Public Radio's most famous reporters nationally--NPR's most famous reporters--have all cut their teeth in Alaska. So some of the people listening probably heard of Peter Kenyon, Corey Flintoff, Elizabeth Arnold. These are kind of the big dogs at NPR right now. Well, they all got their start in Alaska.
So public radio is where Alaskans throughout my State get their news about the weather, about whale hunts, about bear attacks, about births, deaths, crimes, baptism, good works, bad deeds, and you name it; that is where we get our information. In smaller communities, this information could be critical. Because public radio stations across Alaska work cooperatively, they always pretty much keep it local.
So, from KTOO, Ed went to the newsroom of the Juneau Empire, where he
stayed for 18 years. That is the big paper in Juneau. For the last 15 years, he has been one of the voices of Southeast Alaska on CoastAlaska, a public broadcasting consortium of five local communities. His nickname is ``dean of the Douglas press corps.'' Now, this is a bit of a joke, not toward him but just what ``Douglas'' means. Douglas is an island of about 3,000 people.
As the Juneau Empire put it, Ed has earned the professorial status of the dean of the press corps. That status came about because of the dozens and dozens of reporters he has trained and mentored throughout the years, and that is a great legacy.
Of course, he also takes his work very seriously. He has done plenty of lighthearted features about equestrians in Wrangell, exploring caves in the Tongass National Forest, which is the largest national forest in the country.
There are also deeper dives, as you would expect from a serious journalist. He has won an investigative journalism award about allegations of corruption related to a State contract. He has covered our important businesses extensively. There is nobody who has done more digging into an issue that I and my fellow Alaskans care deeply about-- particularly in Southeast--and that is what we call the transboundary mining issue--mining waste that comes from mines in Canada into Alaska's waters. Ed has focused on that more than any other reporter, and it is an issue that, as I mentioned, many of us take very seriously. Transboundary mining is complex. Ed has traveled both in Canada and Alaska to the communities that are impacted by this pollution. He has spoken to everyone--community leaders, fishermen, government officials, environmentalists, mining companies, tourism businesses--and what he ultimately came to on this subject is that our concerns about this pollution are legitimate, but unlike some are saying, not all mines are bad--certainly not in Alaska. We have a number of mines, and certainly some are trying to do the right thing. It is more complicated than what the critics often say, says Ed. That is the way it is on most stories, and that is why we need good reporters.
So many issues are complicated. We can get so frustrated with the kind of simplistic ``he said, she said'' reporting that gets in the papers or on TV today, but good reporters, as we all know, dig much deeper. They cut through the propaganda. They lay out all the facts and facets of an issue and, in many ways, they let us decide. They recognize the people who are listening are intelligent, and they try and help us figure out the importance of some of these big issues. These are the kind of reporters we need in every community. These are the kind of reporters who I think are critical for our democracy.
So now Ed will spend more time with his wife--also a former reporter--Betsy and his two daughters, Elizabeth and Maggie. I am sorry to see him, as I am sure most Alaskans are, hang up his dean's robe. I know his colleagues are sad, but there will be others who follow in his footsteps, others he has mentored--young, eager reporters who want to inform their community, reliably report the news and facts, and of course there is no better place to do that than in Alaska.
So, Ed, thanks for all of your 37 years of hard work for our great State, and congratulations on being our Alaskan of the Week. Your voice will be missed.
Mr. President, as you know right now, we are debating on the Senate floor the National Defense Authorization Act, and I want to congratulate Senator Inhofe, my good friend from Oklahoma and the acting chairman of the Armed Services Committee. I also certainly want to congratulate Senator McCain, whom we are all praying for, who is struggling with some health issues right now, who is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, for the great work they have done shepherding this very important piece of legislation through the committee process. Now we have it on the floor, and we are debating it. It is certainly one of the most important pieces of legislation we bring to the Senate floor every year.
It is over 50 years, without missing 1 year, we have moved the NDAA bill, which authorizes funding and policies for the men and women in our military, through the Senate floor. So there are a bunch of things in this bill that are very important for our troops, for the national defense of our Nation. By the way, it is a very bipartisan bill, just like it was last year. So we are going to be discussing this for the next week, and hopefully people watching back home or here in Washington will get a sense of just how important this legislation is.
What I want to do this afternoon is talk about two provisions my team and I authored in this bill. They are two provisions that are very important, as the President of the United States and his team head to Singapore for the summit that the world is watching with the dictator of North Korea, Kim Jong Un. I wanted to highlight two key sections because what they are meant to do is strengthen the President's hand and the leverage of the United States as the leaders of our country move into these negotiations with a very unpredictable dictator whom, in my view, we can't trust at all. Nevertheless, what we are trying to do is bolster the President's hand in these negotiations, and we are all cautiously optimistic that something positive can come out of this summit.
So what are these two provisions? The first provision deals with strengthening America's missile defense, and the second one focuses on the status of U.S. military forces on the Korean Peninsula. What I would like to do first is talk about the missile defense provisions in the NDAA this year.
Now, as this chart shows, Kim Jong Un has dramatically increased testing for North Korea's missile program and nuclear program. If you look at what happened under his grandfather Kim Il Sung and his father Kim Jong Il, the current leader of North Korea has dramatically increased both the testing on intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear missiles, and nuclear weapons.
Fortunately--and I think the American people want this--we have seen this threat coming. A number of us have seen this threat coming. So that is why, in last year's national defense authorization, we had a bill--my office authored it, but we had many cosponsors, both Democrats and Republicans--to significantly enhance our Nation's missile defense. That passed in the NDAA. It was fully funded by the end of the year-- almost $5 billion to increase missile defense for our Nation.
What it did is it increased capacity, building new fields of missiles that can shoot down any incoming missiles. It increased capability, which would mean accelerating technology for multiple warheads on top of each missile to again increase our ability to shoot down any incoming missile, and it required more testing by the Missile Defense Agency so we can perfect the regional and homeland missile defenses we have in the United States. That is big progress. It is already happening, and of course that is really important, given the threat we now face as a country.
As Alaska's Senator, I am proud of the fact that a lot--actually most--of our Nation's missile defense is located in the great State of Alaska. This is simply physics. This is physics and location, location, location. If there is going to be a threat from either Iran or North Korea or anywhere else with regard to the United States of America, that threat is almost always going to fly over Alaska.
We have our radar systems there. We have long-range discrimination radar there. We have the missile fields protecting every city from New York to L.A., to Miami, all based in the great State of Alaska.
So what are we doing this year? Well, we have an entire new section in the NDAA that builds on what we did last year to dramatically increase our Nation's missile defense even more because you can never be too sure on this. This is an insurance policy that is going to protect every city in America.
So this year, in the current NDAA we are debating right now, the big issues with regard to missile defense are that this bill calls for the development and deployment of space-based sensors. It mandates these within the next couple of years--critical. It also promotes a more integrated missile defense, accelerates our defenses against what are called hypersonic threats--not ballistic missiles but hypersonic threats. Importantly, in terms of missile defense, this bill focuses on our allies, working together with our allies in Korea, in
Japan, and other places in Europe to share these missile defense capabilities so we, as our allies, have a much more robust system.
Let me talk briefly on the very important issue of space-based sensors. Every expert who has testified in front of the Armed Services Committee, whether the current Director of the Missile Defense Agency, General Greaves; whether the four-star general in charge of strategic command, General Hyten; or whether the former Director of the Missile Defense Agency, Admiral Syring, they have all said space-based sensors are critical. The time is now.
What does that mean? What does that do? Well, we have different systems in different parts of the country or different parts of the world. In South Korea, we have the THAAD system. Off the coast of Japan with our Navy, we have the Aegis system ashore and on our Navy ships. Then, back home, we have the home-based system, and that is mostly based in Alaska.
What a space-based sensor program does is it integrates all these systems and has the ability to track--what the military calls an unblinking eye--the ability to track a missile that is shot at our country or shot at our troops from the moment it is shot until the end. We don't have that yet, but we need it to integrate these different systems. Importantly, that is what the NDAA we are debating this year will do to further bolster our Nation's missile defense.
Why do we need that? There has been a lot of recent good will with regard to Kim Jong Un. I want to read a quote by him from this past January. It is a New Year's Day quote. He said:
The whole of [the U.S.] mainland is within the range of our
nuclear strike and the nuclear button is on my office desk
all the time; the United States needs to be clearly aware
that this is not merely a threat but a reality. . . . This
year we should focus on mass producing nuclear warheads and
ballistic missiles for operational deployment.
That is from Kim Jong Un just a couple of months ago. So let's not be taken by this dictator too much as he meets with the President. For decades, he and his dad and his grandfather have been threatening the United States and our troops on the peninsula and our allies in Korea and Japan.
With this state-of-the-art technology, this missile defense system, we are giving the President additional leverage in his negotiations. Indeed, people are asking: Why did Kim Jong Un come to the table? He has been very belligerent. He is saying things like he said on his New Year's Day address. It is really three things: the maximum pressure campaign; the diplomatic campaign by the President, by the administration, by this Congress--we have passed very aggressive legislation on sanctions; and it has been the development by Secretary Mattis of credible military options in the event diplomacy doesn't work.
The Koreans know we are serious. That is ongoing. And with the Secretary of Defense--a former four-star Marine general, Secretary Mattis--I don't think anyone thinks he is bluffing. So that is putting pressure on the North Koreans, and it is this system--this system. The North Koreans know we are now developing technology, so if Kim Jong Un does want to go out in a flame of glory and tries to fire one or two or three intercontinental ballistic missiles at New York or Chicago or L.A., the system we have here, which we are further bolstering, will shoot it down. This is going to give the President more leverage.
We are confident that section 1249 of the NDAA will increase the President's leverage. It involves the critical issue of our U.S. military forces on the Korean Peninsula. This section expresses the will of the Senate by highlighting some key points as they relate to our military on the Korean Peninsula and the history of that military.
What is in this section? It talks about how the United States and South Korea have been allies for decades and how our military forces on the Korean Peninsula, working closely in conjunction with the South Korean military and our alliance, have been the linchpin of peace and security, not just on the Korean Peninsula but in the entire Indo- Pacific region.
This provision of the NDAA focuses on how South Korea has contributed heavily not only to its own defense but also to what our military forces are doing on the Korean Peninsula. It emphasizes that U.S. military forces, pursuant to international law since the outbreak of the Korean war in 1950, have been lawfully deployed on the Korean Peninsula. Yet the nuclear and ballistic missile programs of North Korea are in clear and consistent violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions and international law. Importantly, this provision focuses on the fact that China, Russia, and North Korea have had as their long- term strategic goals the removal of U.S. military forces on the Korean Peninsula. That is what they want.
Indeed, there are reports in the media and other places that President Xi Jinping of China may be trying to coach Kim Jong Un, saying: When you go to these negotiations with President Trump, one thing to shoot for is to get rid of those American forces on the Korean Peninsula. Make that one of your goals.
This provision ends by saying it is the bipartisan sense of the Senate that the significant removal of U.S. military forces from the Korean Peninsula is a nonnegotiable item with Kim Jong Un for his nukes. We are not going to trade lawfully deployed U.S. military forces on the Peninsula for illegal nukes that the North Koreans have developed.
What are we trying to do here? First of all, this is a point that Secretary Mattis has been emphasizing. As a matter of fact, last week I led a CODEL of Senators to a defense ministers' conference in Singapore. This is the biggest military conference of defense ministers, foreign ministers, in the entire Asia-Pacific region.
Secretary Mattis and his team, the Secretary of the Navy, and the admiral in charge of the Indo-Pacific were all there. We met with them and strategized with them. Secretary Mattis gave a great speech on U.S. strategy in the Indo-Pacific, as we are now calling it. He was asked about this very topic. He said this is not an issue that is on the table with Kim Jong Un, nor should it be. The issue of possibly removing U.S. military forces is not even a subject of negotiation.
You see here in this picture U.S. marines and ROK marines training together. We are not going to talk about the issue of moving our legally deployed forces on the Peninsula in exchange for illegally developed nukes and intercontinental ballistic missiles. This is what Secretary Mattis said last week in front of all the defense ministers of Asia.
What we are trying to do with this provision in the NDAA is strengthen the leverage of the administration and show Kim Jong Un--and let's face it, Russia and China, which also want these forces gone-- that the Congress of the United States and the executive branch, the Trump administration, speak with one voice on this issue. What this provision in the NDAA says is exactly what Secretary Mattis said last week. So we are speaking with one voice on this very important issue that is likely going to come up in Singapore when the President is there.
Again, we know some of our adversaries in the region want these forces gone. I don't think that makes strategic sense. Fortunately, neither does a very strong, bipartisan group of Senators. When this bill passes the Senate, we are going to have the entire Senate speaking with one voice on this.
I had the opportunity to talk to Secretary Mattis, Secretary Pompeo, Ambassador Bolton, who is the National Security Advisor, and the President about this provision in the NDAA and how it is the Senate's intent to give them more leverage in the upcoming negotiations with North Korea. I think they are all appreciative of what we are trying to do in the Senate with this important section in the National Defense Authorization Act.
Let me conclude by making a bit of a historical point, but it is actually quite an important point, as we talk about this topic. The Senate has actually played a critical role on this very issue previously. Some might recall that President Jimmy Carter, when he was elected, actually ran on this topic. One of the campaign promises he made, remarkably--I think it was strategically very misguided--was to run on this issue: When I get elected, I am going to remove U.S. military forces out of South Korea. That is what Jimmy Carter campaigned on.
When he got in, he started to look at ways to implement that. Then the Senate reacted. You have long-term strategic interests represented by this body, and a very famous Senator of the President's own party-- Jimmy Carter was a Democrat, and Senator Scoop Jackson of Washington State was a well-known Senator and well-known foreign policy national security expert. He led a delegation of Senators to South Korea. They looked at this issue in detail after President Carter was elected. They came back to Washington after this trip, and they said: It is not a good idea to remove our forces, which have kept the peace on the Korean Peninsula since 1953. We don't think this is a good idea.
The story goes that Scoop Jackson actually went to the White House, talked to President Carter, and said: The Senate is going to oppose this. You are going to have a hard time removing these troops.
So we have a role to play here; we have had a role to play here; and we have played this role.
I want to end with one final anecdote from that trip. The Senate Navy liaison officer who helped lead that delegation of Senators in the late 1970s to South Korea was a Navy captain by the name of John McCain. Yes, that is right; the John McCain whom I mentioned we are all praying for, and by the way, we named this bill after him. This is the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act. The current chairman of the Armed Services Committee who wrote this bill was on that trip as a captain in the U.S. Navy. I think that historical fact makes this provision in the current bill we are debating now, the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act, even more powerful.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.