Floor Statements

Madam President, reserving my right to object.

Madam President, on military justice reform, I am pleased that the NDAA that we will consider this week will enact sweeping and historic reform that changes how sexual assault and other offenses are investigated and prosecuted in the Armed Forces. This bipartisan, bicameral compromise was achieved after tough negotiations with the House and also with the administration. The House voted last week 363 to 70 to pass this bill with these reforms--an overwhelming endorsement of the work that we do. I look forward to a similar, strong vote in the Senate this week, sending these reforms to the President of the United States.

As you know, there have been many proposals for improving how the military prosecutes sexual assault and other crimes, from Senators, Representatives, from the administration, and from other organizations, all of them with their unique merits. Bringing all this together was difficult and complicated, but I believe we have done so effectively.

Our bill removes all meaningful prosecutorial authority from the military chain of command for the series of sexual assault offenses under the UCMJ, as well as for other offenses, including the wrongful distribution of intimate visual images, domestic violence, stalking, retaliation, murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, and child pornography.

Our bill creates special trial counsel, who are highly specialized, independent prosecutors outside the chain of command of the victims and the accused. They will have exclusive, binding, and final decision- making authority over whether to prosecute these crimes.

Under our bill, no commander will be able to overrule the binding decision of a special trial counsel to prosecute or not prosecute a case. Similarly, our bill ensures that the special trial counsel have the exclusive authority to withdraw or dismiss charges or specifications, removing that power from commanders.

Finally, our bill will make a large number of necessary and conforming amendments to the UCMJ to effectuate this reform, and I am sure there will be need for more of this during the 2-year implementation period.

The bottom line is that the reforms contained in this bill represent a sea change in military justice. At the end of the day, this NDAA will enact the most sweeping reform to the UCMJ in decades, and that is why Protect Our Defenders--probably one of the most effective and vocal organizations founded on the premise of defending the rights of victims of sexual assault--said: ``The provisions included in this year's NDAA are the most transformative military justice reforms in our Nation's history.''

Madam President, having made that statement, I will object.

Mr. President, it is time for a national investment in building a strong and resilient educator pipeline to ensure that all schools have the diverse, profession-ready teachers, principals, librarians, counselors, and other specialized instructional support personnel they need to support student development and academic achievement. Today, along with Senator Bob Casey and Representative Alma Adams, I am introducing the Educators for America Act to provide the blueprint for building this pipeline.

For years, we have seen declines in enrollment in educator preparation programs. Now in the wake of the pandemic, schools are facing pervasive staffing shortages. An Education Week survey found 40 percent of district leaders and principals describe the shortages as ``severe'' or ``very severe.'' The National Association of Secondary School Principals reported that nearly 4 out of 10 principals are expecting to leave the profession in the next 3 years.

Moreover, the gap between the demographic makeup of the student body and the education profession is widening. Even though over 50 percent of students are people of color and that multiple studies have shown that racial diversity can provide significant benefits to students, a 2016 Department of Education report showed that 82 percent of public school teachers identified as White, a figure that had barely changed since 2000.

Simply put, we can no longer afford to neglect the educator pipeline.

The Educators for America Act calls for a $1 billion annual investment in the educator pipeline, divided evenly between State capacity building and direct support for educator preparation programs and partnerships with high need school districts. It addresses the full pipeline from early outreach and career exploration to financial assistance and wraparound supports for those pursuing education careers to clinical preparation for teachers, principals, and other educators to faculty development, all with a focus on ensuring equity and diversity.

Just as importantly, the Educators for America Act will reduce financial barriers to pursuing careers in education. The legislation will double the value of the TEACH grant to $8,000 per year and provide greater flexibility for meeting the service requirements. It establishes a new monthly credit for teachers, principals, and other educators towards repayment on their student loans so they earn loan forgiveness as they serve rather than watching their loan balances stagnate or grow for 5 to 10 years before receiving any benefit.

The Educators for America Act reflects the input from stakeholders across the education field about what is needed to recruit, prepare, and support educators. To date, 45 organizations have endorsed it.

The Nation's outlook for the future is tied to the strength of the education profession. Our economic prosperity, the health of our democracy and civic society, and our ability to meet the challenges of climate change and the information age depend on our students having access to well-prepared and supported educators who reflect the diversity of the students they serve.

Today, the profession is in crisis. It is time to act. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Educators for America Act and work with me to get it passed into law.

Mr. President, it is time for a national investment in building a strong and resilient educator pipeline to ensure that all schools have the diverse, profession-ready teachers, principals, librarians, counselors, and other specialized instructional support personnel they need to support student development and academic achievement. Today, along with Senator Bob Casey and Representative Alma Adams, I am introducing the Educators for America Act to provide the blueprint for building this pipeline.

For years, we have seen declines in enrollment in educator preparation programs. Now in the wake of the pandemic, schools are facing pervasive staffing shortages. An Education Week survey found 40 percent of district leaders and principals describe the shortages as ``severe'' or ``very severe.'' The National Association of Secondary School Principals reported that nearly 4 out of 10 principals are expecting to leave the profession in the next 3 years.

Moreover, the gap between the demographic makeup of the student body and the education profession is widening. Even though over 50 percent of students are people of color and that multiple studies have shown that racial diversity can provide significant benefits to students, a 2016 Department of Education report showed that 82 percent of public school teachers identified as White, a figure that had barely changed since 2000.

Simply put, we can no longer afford to neglect the educator pipeline.

The Educators for America Act calls for a $1 billion annual investment in the educator pipeline, divided evenly between State capacity building and direct support for educator preparation programs and partnerships with high need school districts. It addresses the full pipeline from early outreach and career exploration to financial assistance and wraparound supports for those pursuing education careers to clinical preparation for teachers, principals, and other educators to faculty development, all with a focus on ensuring equity and diversity.

Just as importantly, the Educators for America Act will reduce financial barriers to pursuing careers in education. The legislation will double the value of the TEACH grant to $8,000 per year and provide greater flexibility for meeting the service requirements. It establishes a new monthly credit for teachers, principals, and other educators towards repayment on their student loans so they earn loan forgiveness as they serve rather than watching their loan balances stagnate or grow for 5 to 10 years before receiving any benefit.

The Educators for America Act reflects the input from stakeholders across the education field about what is needed to recruit, prepare, and support educators. To date, 45 organizations have endorsed it.

The Nation's outlook for the future is tied to the strength of the education profession. Our economic prosperity, the health of our democracy and civic society, and our ability to meet the challenges of climate change and the information age depend on our students having access to well-prepared and supported educators who reflect the diversity of the students they serve.

Today, the profession is in crisis. It is time to act. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Educators for America Act and work with me to get it passed into law.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators .

Mr. President, reserving my right to object, the Senator from Oklahoma, as he always does, has very thoughtfully identified a problem that is affecting our military forces. And he has also identified the complex interplay between different aspects of the law: article 32, article 10, the authority of the Governor, the authority of the Secretary of Defense, legislation we might have passed.

This is an issue that, I think, bears close scrutiny, and I would like to assist in such scrutiny. But in terms of preemptively adopting a statute tonight without such scrutiny, I would be compelled to object.

So, Mr. President, with all due respect to the Senator from Oklahoma, I would object.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I object.

I also want to thank the Senator from Utah for his consideration.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, now I would ask unanimous consent that it be in order to call up the following amendments to the Reed-Inhofe substitute amendment No. 3867, as modified, in the order listed, and that these be the only remaining amendments in order: 1, Cruz No. 4656; 2, Kaine No. 4133; 3, Peters-Portman No. 4799; 4, Scott of Florida No. 4831; 5, Marshall No. 4093; 6, King-Rounds No. 4784; 7, Hawley No. 4140; 8 Hassan-Cornyn No. 4255; 9, Paul No. 4395; 10, Sanders No. 4654; 11, Daines No. 4236; 12, Menendez No. 4786; 13, Lujan-Crapo No. 4260; 14, Lee No. 4793; 15, Sanders No. 4722; 16, Portman-Shaheen No. 4540; 17, Menendez No. 4860; 18, Risch No. 4859; 19, Durbin-Lee No. 3939; 20, Shaheen-Collins No. 4584; 21, Kennedy No. 4660; 22, Ossoff-Tillis No. 4802; 23, Lankford No. 4100; 24, Cardin-Wicker No. 3980; that the Senate vote at 10 a.m. on Thursday, December 2, in relation to any first-degree amendment offered in the order listed above, with 60- affirmative votes required for adoption of the above amendments in this agreement; further, that upon disposition of the above amendments, the Senate vote on cloture on amendment No. 3867, as modified, upon reconsideration; and the motion to invoke cloture on H.R. 4350 be withdrawn; that if cloture is invoked upon reconsideration, the Reed amendment No. 4775 be withdrawn and the Senate vote on the substitute, as modified and as amended, if amended; that the bill be considered read a third time and the Senate vote on the passage of the bill, as amended, if amended; and that there be 2 minutes for debate, equally divided in the usual form, prior to each vote, all without further intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I object to the modification.

Madam President, in reserving my right to object, the Senator from Florida is right.

The key issue here is the blue slip, which originates from the constitutional language mandating that all revenue bills must begin in the House of Representatives. If it is determined by the House that it is a revenue bill, then anyone--I am informed in the House--can object, not just to the amendment of the gentleman from Florida but to the entire bill.

Essentially, if we pursue this, we would put at risk the entire National Defense Authorization Act for reasons that could be related to the issue the Senator from Florida brings up, but it could be related to many other issues, and there are quite a few issues in this bill.

So, for that reason, I would object to the modification.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, it would be a very disappointing moment if we would fail to invoke cloture.

This bill, from the very beginning, has been completely bipartisan and open to amendments. In the course, as Senator King eloquently remarked, of the committee hearing, we included over 100 amendments on a bipartisan basis. We came to the floor with a bill that passed our committee 23 to 3--overwhelmingly bipartisan.

We also brought to the floor a substitute amendment, including, approximately, 60 amendments that were also bipartisan. And then we had another series of nearly 20 amendments that was bipartisan, that would have been voted on, but they were objected to because several Members did not get their amendments.

Now, just to point out, the majority of those amendments aren't even within the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee. They don't relate directly to the men and women of the armed services. They might have foreign policy implications, but they are not something that is essential to the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act.

I can recall many times on this floor when the NDAA was brought up; both sides could not agree on amendments; we went through the process; we invoked cloture; we voted on the substitute bill; and we went off to conference. So this would not be the first occasion on which, ironically, a few people did not get their amendments. In fact, on previous occasions, there were many, many people who did not get their amendments.

And so, again, I go back to the point that we have produced a bipartisan piece of legislation. I commend the ranking member. We worked with closely the subcommittee chairs and the subcommittee ranking members. The staff has done a superb job. And we are here, just one procedural vote away from moving forward, and I think we should move forward for the benefit of the men and women of the armed services, as Senator King, again, so eloquently described.

I think the other factor, too, is that eventually we have to reconcile whatever we do or attempt to do with the

House of Representatives. Certainly, I think it gives us much more credibility, much more clout, and much more leverage when we have a strong bill that has passed on the floor of the Senate.

We are not talking about 100 amendments that we have to consider. We are talking about a handful of Senators who didn't get their way, even though many others were frustrated. I think, again, our duty is to move forward to pass this cloture vote this evening, then to move forward to final passage, and then to reconcile our differences with the House and come back with legislation.

At this point--and I think the ranking member would agree with me--as it stands right now, I would be proud to pass this legislation because it is bipartisan, it responds to the needs of the men and women of the Armed Forces, and it establishes robust resources for the Department of Defense much more than were advocated by the President in his budget.

So we are taking a strong step forward, and I just would hate to see this as a sidestep away from final passage.

I would urge all of my colleagues to vote for cloture.

I would be happy to yield.

That is absolutely correct.

There have been occasions where we have had--once we got the substitute adopted--in some cases, no amendments and we went to final passage, ultimately, and in other cases, just a handful of amendments. Last year, I don't believe we had the kind of amendments we are offering this year, some of them have nothing whatsoever to do with the national defense. The nearly 20 amendments we were proposing were nearly equally divided to be bipartisan.

And, frankly, to your point, I think this would represent more amendments than in the many years I witnessed the passage of the NDAA.

Mr. President, I rise to express my great disappointment that some of my colleagues have indicated by their vote that they are preventing the adoption of the National Defense Authorization Act, and they claim that more amendments and more debate are needed.

This bill has been bipartisan from the beginning. It incorporated over 100 amendments at the committee level. There were approximately 60 additional amendments in the substitute, which were agreed to on a bipartisan basis.

Last week before we adjourned, we offered nearly 20 more amendments on a bipartisan basis, and they were rejected by my colleagues on the Republican side, just as this evening, this motion for cloture was rejected by the Republicans. They had their opportunity to consider more amendments. We had 19 amendments ready last week that were brought forward on an equal basis to be debated and voted upon. But that was blocked by several of my Republican colleagues.

One of the ironies this evening is that many of my colleagues, who had their amendments denied by fellow Republican objections, came down and voted against the bill. That doesn't seem to be particularly logical, in my mind.

Now, in the course of NDAAs--and I have done a few--there have been periods in which there has been extensive considerations of the bill with very few, if any, amendments. There have been times in which only a handful of amendments were presented before we voted on cloture, passed cloture, and passed the bill. So this is an unusual departure from procedure, particularly with a bill that has so much bipartisan support.

The bill passed out of committee 23 to 3 because it represented all of the principled points that my colleagues wanted. In the course of the committee deliberations, there were 300 amendments presented, and we adopted 143.

Mr. President, let me yield to the majority leader.

I thank the majority leader for his comments and just to elaborate, this represents what the majority leader just pointed out--a few Members on the other side frustrated the entire process and, ironically, frustrated many of their own colleagues in their caucus who had amendments, either in the substitute agreement or were ready to be voted on.

So this is really a question of doing our utmost, as we have in the past, not for individual points but for the support of the men and women in the military. That was the spirit that guided our efforts in the committee.

Working closely with Senator Inhofe and all the Members on both sides, we recognized that what we do ultimately affects the safety and the welfare of our men and women in uniform and their families. And this legislation would accomplish a great deal. This is, in my sense, one of the most bipartisan bills we have ever considered. It is unfortunate that we can't move forward on a bipartisan basis, consider this bill, and then go to the House and come back with a final legislation for consideration by this Senate.

We will have to do an NDAA. It will be done. I think Senator Inhofe is committed to that, as I am, and we will have to use procedures that are appropriate to get it done. But we just missed an opportunity to send a clear message that we support this legislation, we support our troops. We are going to get to final passage, and then we are going to go to the House, and then we will send the bill to the President of the United States.

I should note that one of the other reasons that many amendments were not brought up for debate is because they are not in the purview of the Armed Services Committee. There were foreign policy issues; there were sanctions issues, et cetera. The NDAA often serves as a vehicle to move those issues along, but it is not central to the purpose of the bill.

Our nation faces an enormous range of security challenges, and it is more important than ever that we provide our military men and women with the support they need to keep Americans safe. To that end, this bill makes great progress. It addresses a broad range of pressing issues, from strategic competition with China and Russia, to investing in game-changing technologies, to modernizing our ships, aircraft, and vehicles. It provides our servicemembers with the resources and support they need to defend our Nation, while at the same taking care of their families.

That is why we are here on the floor with the national defense authorization act. It is not only an opportunity, but a responsibility. Tonight, we demonstrated irresponsibility to those who serve and their families. I regret it immensely.

Now, I look forward, again, to working with my colleague Senator Inhofe and all Members of the committee, to continue forward to develop legislation that will be acceptable to this body and pass, as we have for 60-some-odd years, the National Defense Authorization Act.

I recognize and thank my colleague from Ohio for yielding to me.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I call up amendment No. 3867, as modified, and I ask that it be reported by number.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 4775 and I ask that it be reported by number.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the substitute to the desk.

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to H.R. 4350 to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum calls for the cloture motions filed today, November 19, be waived.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed

to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 521, 492, 493, 494, 537, 538, 553, 554, and all nominations on the Secretary's Desk in the Coast Guard and the Foreign Service; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc, without intervening action or debate; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn to then convene for pro forma sessions only, with no business being conducted on the following dates and times, and that following each pro forma session, the Senate adjourn until the next pro forma session: Tuesday, November 23, at 8:15 a.m. and Friday, November 26, at 10 a.m. I further ask that when the Senate adjourns on Friday, November 26, it next convene at 3 p.m., Monday, November 29; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 4350, the National Defense Authorization Act; further, that the cloture motions filed during today's session ripen at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, November 29; finally, that the filing deadline for first-degree amendments to substitute amendment No. 3867, as modified, and the underlying bill, H.R. 4350, be at 3:30 p.m. on Monday, November 29.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the fiscal year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act.

Over the coming days, the Senate will consider this bill, which the Armed Services Committee passed by a broad bipartisan margin of 23 to 3 in July.

I look forward to debating and improving this bill, as we all work toward ensuring our military has the right tools and capabilities to combat threats around the globe and keep Americans safe.

First, I would like to acknowledge Ranking Member Inhofe, whose leadership on this committee and this body has been invaluable. His commitment to our men and women in uniform is unwavering, and he was instrumental in helping to produce this bipartisan legislation.

As we debate the NDAA, we must keep in mind that the United States is engaged in a strategic competition with China and Russia. These near- peer rivals do not accept U.S. global leadership or the international norms that have helped keep the peace for the better part of a century.

This strategic competition is likely to intensify due to shifts in the military balance of power and diverging views of governance. And it is unfolding amidst climate change and the emergence of highly disruptive technologies.

The interconnected nature of these threats will drive how we transform our tools of national power to respond. The passage of the FY2022 NDAA will be a critical step in meeting the complex challenges before us.

Turning to the specifics of this year's Defense bill, the NDAA authorizes $740 billion for the Department of Defense and $27 billion for national security programs within the Department of Energy.

For the first time in years, this legislation, like the President's budget request, does not include a separate overseas contingency fund, or OCO, request. Any war-related costs are included in the base budget.

This bill contains a number of important provisions that I would like to highlight.

To begin, we have a duty to ensure that the United States can outcompete, deter, and prevail against near-peer rivals. The NDAA supports the Department of Defense in this endeavor by providing the resources needed by the combatant commanders to carry out the national defense strategy, or NDS.

Every 4 years, the Department reports the NDS to outline the national security objectives of the administration. The 2018 NDS provided a framework, and the DOD will release a new strategy in the coming months.

In this regard, this bill creates a commission on the national defense strategy for the forthcoming NDS in order to boost our military advantage. Last year, the Armed Service Committee created the Pacific Deterrence Initiative--or PDI--to better align DOD resources in support of military-to-military partnerships to address the challenges posed by China.

This year's bill extends and modifies the PDI and reiterates the committee's intent to improve our force posture in the Indo-Pacific, to increase readiness and presence, and to build the capabilities of our partners and allies to counter these threats.

Future investments under PDI should focus on military and nonmilitary infrastructure in the Indo-Pacific region. This will assist in distributed military operations, and it will be more effective in countering predatory Chinese infrastructure development practices.

The bill also requires the Secretary of Defense to provide recurring briefings on efforts to deter Chinese aggression and military coercion. It compels a briefing on the advisability and feasibility of increasing United States defense cooperation with Taiwan. It is important we help Taiwan improve its overall readiness and acquire asymmetric capabilities most likely to make the Chinese Government question their ability to take the island by force.

I want to emphasize, however, that our Nation's ability to deter China cannot be based on military might alone. We must strengthen our network of allies and partners, which will be essential to any strategy for the Indo-Pacific region. We must also ensure that, as we shift our focus to the Indo-Pacific, we do not lose sight of priorities in other areas, like Europe.

This year's bill authorizes the continuation of the European Deterrence Initiative--or the EDI--recognizing the continued need to invest in support for our European allies and partners as we work toward the shared goal of deterring Russian aggression, addressing strategic competition, and mitigating shared security concerns, the most recent one being the amassing of Russian troops on the border of Ukraine.

Turning to personnel, the key factor that makes the United States the greatest military power in the world is its people. We need to ensure that our uniformed personnel know every day how much we appreciate what they do and that we have their backs.

Congress has done a good job in providing benefits to the military and their families, and this year's Defense bill continues to do that. But our military is showing the strain of two decades of continuous deployments, and I am concerned that there has been a dangerous erosion of trust within the chain of command; and issues such as racism, extremism, sexual harassment, and sexual assault have been allowed to fester and create friction and division.

The Department of Defense is addressing those issues, but Congress must provide guidance and resources. To this end, the bill strengthens the All-Volunteer Force and improves the quality of life of the men and women of the total force: the Active Duty, the National Guard, and the Reserves; their families; and, importantly, the Department of Defense civilian employees, who contribute significantly to the effectiveness of our operations.

It reinforces the principles of a strong, diverse, inclusive force and that force cohesion requires a command climate that does not tolerate extremism or sexual assault misconduct or racism; and that quality healthcare is a fundamental necessity for servicemembers and their families.

Importantly, this NDAA includes the funding necessary to support a 2.7 percent pay raise for both military servicemembers and the DOD civilian workforce. We have also included a provision that would amend the Military Selective Service Act to require the registration of women for Selective Service. I am proud of this position, which passed the Armed Services Committee on a broad bipartisan basis.

Society, the military, and the nature of warfare itself have evolved significantly since the 1948 Military Selective Service Act passed. Back then, women were denied the opportunity to serve in

combat roles and key leadership positions, and entire technologies and platforms didn't even exist.

Today, all military occupations, including combat roles, are open to women, and military success depends heavily on servicemembers with advanced education and technical skills in STEM, cyber, medicine, languages, and more.

To be clear, I am hopeful that we will never have to draft again. If we do, however, it will be under circumstances so dire and existential that to voluntarily choose to enter the fight with anything less than our very best would be supremely foolish and potentially fatal. If we are going to have a Selective Service System, women must be a part of it. Basic equality and military readiness demand parity between the sexes to protect our country and uphold our values. In the meantime, it is time to end outdated sex discrimination and remove it from official policy and Federal law.

The bill also creates a new category of bereavement leave for military personnel that would permit servicemembers to take up to 2 weeks of leave in connection with the death of a spouse or a child. Similarly, in an effort to provide greater care and support to our military men and women, it increases parental leave to 12 weeks for all servicemembers for the birth, adoption, or foster care placement of a child. It establishes a basic needs allowance to ensure that all servicemembers can meet the basic needs of their families, and it requires parity and special and incentive pays for members of the Reserve and the active components.

In addition, I am proud that this bill makes historic changes to the military justice system to combat and discourage sexual assault and related misconduct within the military. Sexual assault is an unconscionable crime and a pervasive problem in the U.S. military and American society writ large.

When it comes to the military, one of the basic ethics is that one must protect your comrades and your subordinates; one cannot exploit them. Sexual assault and sexual harassment is an example of unconscionable exploitation, and it must be eliminated. We must take comprehensive action to halt sexual misconduct, hold offenders accountable, and support survivors. While the military has tried to stop sexual assault in the ranks, it simply hasn't been enough.

I commend President Biden, the Department of Defense, and the Independent Review Commission for their work on proposals, which we have considered during our markup and which are reflected in the bill. We will continue to work with the administration and the House to move toward enacting this momentous change.

Turning now to the areas of air, land, and sea power, with respect to our services, we have taken steps to improve their capabilities, their readiness, and their ability to fight and win.

This bill makes significant efforts to improve the readiness of the Navy and Marine Corps aircraft, ships, and weapons systems. It provides considerable investments in our next-generation Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, including an increase of $1.7 billion to restore a second guided missile destroyer to this year's budget and $125 million for long lead material for our destroyer in fiscal year 2023.

The bill authorizes $4.8 billion for the Columbia-class submarine program and for industrial-based development and expansion in support of the Virginia and Columbia shipbuilding programs, an increase of $130 million.

I was up at Quonset Point, RI, recently, where all submarines start their construction. Along with the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Secretary Hicks, we saw the progress that we are making to build two Virginia-class submarines a year and turning out the first Columbia- class ballistic missile ship to replace the Ohio class.

We are moving forward. And, frankly, many believe--as I do--that undersea strength is the best form of deterrence that we have. And as we deploy more submarines, we will have a greater ability to deter potential conflict.

This bill also increases the Landing Helicopter Assault replacement funding by $350 million and the Expeditionary Fast Transport vessel program by $270 million.

Growing our surface and undersea warfare capabilities will be vital to our success in the Indo-Pacific region, and this NDAA makes important progress in this area. It is consistent with our defense strategy of shifting our focus to the Pacific, which requires a shift of resources to the Navy and Marine Corps.

Similarly, the bill authorizes funding to strengthen naval aviation, including five additional F-35 fighter variants, one additional E-2D Hawkeye aircraft, two additional C-130J Hercules aircraft, an additional KC-130J tanker, two additional CH-53K helicopters, and two MQ-4C Triton unmanned aerial systems.

Now, with respect to the Air Force, the bill increases authorization funding by providing an additional F-35A fighter, five additional F-15 fighters, and extensions on the minimal capacity of several Air Force platforms.

With respect to the Army, I am pleased that the bill advances research and development in important future technologies and makes broad investments in generational Army modernization efforts and continues to upgrade significant enduring capabilities.

Our bill focuses on filling critical deficiencies and increasing investments in rapidly evolving demands. Further, it funds rapid development and fielding of land-based, long-range fires, including the precision strike missile, medium-range capability, and long-range hypersonic weapons.

It also provides funding for future long-range assault aircraft and future attack reconnaissance aircraft, increased funding for the future tactical unmanned aircraft system, and authorizes full funding for the AH-64 Apache attack helicopters and the UH-60 Black Hawk utility helicopters.

We are at a critical junction in a technological race with our near- peer competitors. We have enjoyed a technological lead over the last many decades. That lead is shrinking, and we have to not only develop the best of new technologies; we have to get them in the hands of our troops as quickly as possible. And that is what we are trying to do in this legislation.

Again, the issue is deterrence first, and what will help deter any conflict will be the realization of our adversaries that they are going up against the most sophisticated, technologically capable military in the world, manned by the most dedicated and skillful women and men in the world. That is what we are hoping to encourage.

Likewise, with respect to the Army, the bill supports the modernization of its ground combat vehicles, including the M1 Abrams tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Paladin self-propelled howitzer, tactical-type vehicles.

Having the platforms and the personnel is critical, but they have got to be ready to go, and we have taken great pride in trying to improve the readiness of our forces.

This NDAA authorizes more than $2.8 billion for additional military construction projects after funding other large projects in the budget request. This bill also includes a number of provisions that will help acquisition outcomes by strengthening the ability of DOD to analyze the defense industrial base, evaluate acquisition programs, and implement acquisition reform efforts.

It also streamlines processes to allow the Pentagon to invest in and incorporate advanced commercial technologies to support defense missions and strengthen DOD small business programs to allow partnerships with innovative, high-tech companies.

From post-World War II until very recently, we were really in an industrial age, and the United States led the world. We have now moved to a post-industrial age where the new technologies, the new innovations aren't coming out of government labs or the Bell Labs; they are coming out of small business; they are coming out of young people who have come up with great ideas.

And what we want to do and what we want to empower the Department of Defense to do is to be able to get those ideas, develop them, and incorporate them rapidly into our military forces.

That means we have to develop partnerships with small business and think in a different way. We have to think about a more entrepreneurial acquisition system rather than ``this is the way we have always done it and are going to keep doing it.''

We also have another area that we have to pay attention to, and that is

the area of the modernization of our nuclear triad. I recognize the concerns voiced by some of my colleagues about the cost of, and genuine disagreements about, our Nation's nuclear policy. From my perspective, nuclear deterrence is the bedrock of our national defense. For our nuclear deterrent to be credible and to ensure these weapons never need to be used, they must be capable and ready for use.

The deterrence that we have enjoyed for many, many decades has been gained by the acknowledgement by all other nuclear powers that we are more than capable to respond. Our allies and partners depend on the U.S. nuclear umbrella. That is one of the reasons why the proliferation which President Kennedy thought would be almost universal has not developed. And modernization of our strategic forces is necessary to ensure their dependability.

One thing I think everyone agrees on, and I think often gets lost in the discussion, is another factor: arms control and modernization of our nuclear forces are inherently linked together. We must reinvigorate our efforts on arms control so that we do not have a situation where the proliferation issue becomes more obvious and more dangerous. So even as we modernize, we should seek ways to promote strategic stability, like the extension of the New START agreement and follow-on talks to cover new strategic weapons and further reduce nuclear stockpiles. The best way to reduce nuclear weapons is through negotiated mutual arms reductions rather than unilateral actions. That has been the history of the Cold War, which with the Soviets and the United States we were able, with every Presidency, to come up with some type of agreement. Unfortunately, we took, I think, a less aggressive posture in the last administration, but we have to renew significantly our arms control efforts and make them clear that it is mutual interest of Russia but also China because China is a growing nuclear power with a very deliberate plan to increase significantly their nuclear arsenals.

We have to get a situation where there is at least a trilateral negotiation between the United States, China, and Russia for our own mutual benefit. And part of that is also not just looking at numbers but looking at the safeguards that each country places on the use of nuclear weapons.

We do not want a situation where there is an accidental launch that triggers a catastrophic response. We have much to do. But I will emphasize again that simply rebuilding our triad without rebuilding our diplomacy is not the best path forward.

What we have tried to do in this bill is to enhance deterrence through a number of factors, including recapitalizing the nuclear triad; ensuring the safety and security and reliability of our nuclear stockpile, our delivery systems, and our infrastructure; increasing capacity in theater and homeland missile defense; and strengthening nonproliferation programs.

We have--particularly our land-based missile systems--installations that were built in the 1960s. They are roughly 60 years old. They are showing wear and tear. And the delivery vehicles are also old. That is part of our modernization program. The Columbia class is the first of our new ballistic missile submarines. We have to replace the Ohio class because, frankly, that fleet will literally wear out. They won't be capable to go to sea at some point in the future. And that is why we are beginning right now. We are also looking at a new, sophisticated armor that will complement the other two legs of the triad.

And because this involves the Department of Energy and the National Nuclear Security Administration, we authorized $20 billion for this effort. We have funded the Department of Energy's other defense activities at $920 million and its nuclear energy activities at $149.8 million. This is all part of having an effective deterrence.

Now, as we have seen, our adversaries are developing other capabilities at an alarming rate. With regard to hypersonics, it is especially clear that China is working to develop capabilities that evade current missile defense capabilities possessed by the United States and our allies. To address these threats, the bill authorizes the Missile Defense Agency to develop a highly reliable missile defense interceptor for the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System. It also authorizes the procurement of the Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system, David's Sling Weapon System, and Arrow 3 Upper Tier Interceptor Program to support our closest ally in the Middle East, Israel.

There was a barrage emanating from Israel's neighbors of approximately 4,500 missiles over the last year. And Iron Dome, which was created by the Israeli Government, knocked down a significant number of those missiles protecting the State of Israel. So this is not an academic exercise; this is supporting a close ally.

And it is also clear, as I mentioned before, China is expanding its nuclear weapons stockpile at a faster rate than we have seen from any other nation. It appears that China is seeking to at least reach parity with the United States and Russia in its efforts to become a world- class military. To respond to this and other countries' proliferation efforts, the NDAA authorizes $239.84 million for Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs to stop the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological threats around the world.

If you take those three aspects--improving our military capability, invigorating our diplomacy, and actively using Cooperative Threat Reduction--to lower the ability and capability of those that have nuclear weapons, that is the best path ahead.

Now, we have understood over the last several years that what is causing a great deal of destruction in this world in every aspect is technology, including cyber space activities. And we, again, are trying to hone and invigorate our technological innovation in this area.

Innovation has long given us the strongest economy and military in the world. But it must be nurtured and maintained through careful investments and strong leadership in both the public and private sectors.

I believe we have an advantage because we have such a great educational system, a great entrepreneurial system, the creativity and talent of the American people, but we have to focus on needs for our military and national priorities.

And our top priority for Congress must be maintaining strong investments in technology areas that we know will shape future conflicts. This year's NDAA includes multiple provisions to accelerate the modernization of the Department of Defense by investing in research and development of cutting-edge technologies and delivering them in a timely manner to the force. Specifically, it authorizes an increase of more than $1 billion for science and technology programs that fund cutting-edge research and prototyping activities at universities, small businesses, defense labs, and industry, including in critical areas such as artificial intelligence, microelectronics, advanced materials, 5G, and biotechnology.

The bill also authorizes an increase of more than $500 million in funding for DARPA, the Defense Advanced Projects Agency. DARPA has been conducting high-risk, high-payoff research for years, including such areas as quantum computing and assisting with universities to accelerate their research. Importantly, the implements a number of recommendations from the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, which the Armed Services Committee established in a previous NDAA. The $500 million of funding for DARPA will be extremely critical to the future and will produce, I think, some breakthrough technologies that not only DOD will use but will become commercial products for our national economy.

And recognizing, again, the competition between the United States and China on certain militarily-relevant technologies, the bill strengthens the language of the CHIPS Act to ensure the national network for microelectronics research and development to support the development of world-leading domestic microelectronics technology and manufacturing capabilities.

Now, I mentioned one of our problems is that we are moving from an industrial age, in which we were the dominant power in every dimension, to a new post-industrial age, where technological innovation has been distributed. Other countries, because of the

nature of cyber and other technologies, are beginning to catch up with it and, in some cases, pass us. Often, and especially in the Department of Defense, one of our problems has been procurement and acquisition practices. The Department's approach has been convoluted, poorly communicated, and burdened with inertia that makes partnering with private industry far too difficult. As America confronts threats around the globe that are evolving at unprecedented speeds, we must find a better way to identify our defense needs, communicate them, and deliver them in a timely manner.

There are several areas that, if transformed, could allow DOD to more effectively do this. The fiscal year 2022 NDAA makes important progress by establishing an independent commission to review and assess the planning, programming, budgeting, and execution--or PPBE--process and identify areas for reform.

The PPBE process has, for many decades, since the 1960s, given DOD leaders a way to evaluate the resources they need and to deliver them to the troops. However, as I mention consistently, it is a bit of a relic of the industrial age.

It came in 1961 under Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, the former chief executive of the Ford Company. And at that time, it was the most sophisticated way to manage resources and do research, but that was the height of the industrial age.

We are now in a situation much different. So we need to modernize the procurement system and the acquisition system that we have in place. We have to make it more rapid, more agile, more capable of absorbing new products and getting them into the hands of the troops.

So in addition to establishing this independent review commission, the NDAA requires the DOD Comptroller, along with the DOD's Chief Information Officer and the Chief Data Officer, to submit a plan to consolidate the IT systems used to manage data and support the PPBE process.

One of the things we have discovered is there is no really integrated data plan in the Department of Defense--the largest Federal entity. There are multiple different brands of software systems, different brand of hardware. Some can talk to others, some can't. There is no successful company today that has such a, shall we say, slightly immature information processing system, and we have got to change it.

Similarly, management transformation is badly needed with the Department. As I said, it is one of the largest bureaucracies in the world, and the Government Accountability Office has put the Pentagon's approach to business management on its high-risk list, citing its vulnerability to waste, fraud, and abuse, inability to pass a financial audit, and a culture that remains resistant to change. To spur transformation, this NDAA requires the Secretary of Defense to improve Pentagon management by leveraging best practices and expertise from commercial industry, public administration, and business schools.

I am confident these steps will allow us to leverage the best of American ingenuity and market talent that drives innovation. At the end of the day, we should think about management as a defense capability like any other. We hope we are opening up a new day of more efficient and sophisticated management, more integrated communication, and doing it in a way that will produce results that will get the best technology into the hands of our fighting men and women.

One factor that we all are aware of every day is the challenge of cyber security. The cyber domain impacts everything we do, so there is absolutely no surprise that it has impacted the Defense Department and its industrial base. We need to ensure that our industrial base has improved cyber security, that they are not the back door through which our adversaries will use to enter and gain access to even more critical elements of our national security. As the recent SolarWinds, Microsoft Exchange Server, and Colonial Pipeline breaches painfully illustrated, traditional ``perimeter-based'' cyber defenses are simply inadequate to deal with sophisticated threats. Our adversaries are clearly advantaged in cyber domain and are likely to succeed in penetrating static defenses. Therefore, this NDAA requires the development of a joint ``zero trust'' cyber security strategy and a model architecture for the Department of Defense information network. It also authorizes an increase of $268.4 million across DOD to support cyber security efforts.

We all recognize that cyber is a persistent threat to everything we do. As one very thoughtful gentleman said years ago at a function I was at, ``Breakthrough technology like cyber has two effects. It makes good things better and bad things worse.'' And that is exactly what we are witnessing every day. So we have to exploit the good things and get them into our system and be much more vigilant at protecting us from the bad things.

Similarly, as the COVID crisis has made clear, we need a coordinated industrial policy to ensure that we have a robust, secure, and reliable technology and industrial base, especially in critical and emerging technology.

We need to give the DOD the tools and expertise to understand its supply chain and its physical security challenges, its financial challenges, and influence from commercial market trends. To that end, this bill directs the Comptroller General to conduct a comprehensive assessment of research, development, test, and evaluation authorities and other similar authorities and brief Congress on its findings.

The pandemic has shown many interesting things. Many companies and suppliers to our defense thought their products were coming from the United States, only to discover that critical components came from elsewhere and sometimes countries that were not particularly friendly to us. So we have to look seriously at our supply chain.

Finally, while I spent most of my time speaking about future challenges and how we prepare the Department of Defense to face them, we cannot lose sight of the events surrounding our withdrawal from Afghanistan.

After nearly 20 years of war, enormous sacrifice by American and coalition military, diplomatic, and intelligence personnel and vast U.S. investment, the Afghan state has failed, and the Taliban has taken control.

The Armed Services Committee has undertaken a series of hearings seeking to understand the collapse of the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces. While there is temptation to close the book on Afghanistan and simply move on to long-term strategic competition with China and Russia, we must learn the lessons of the last two decades to ensure that our future counterterrorism efforts in Afghanistan or anyplace else continue to hold violent extremists at bay.

The top-line defense number in this bill, together with the allocations set by Chairman Leahy for defense and nondefense funding across the 12 appropriations bills, provides a realistic balance for funding the military and the rest of the Federal Government.

Once we have completed work on this important authorization bill, we need to complete the appropriations process. It would be a tremendous mistake and harmful for our national security, our economic prosperity, and our public health to resort to a continuing resolution to fund the government for an extensive period.

I have calculated, roughly, that if we go into a yearlong continuing resolution, the Department of Defense will lose $36 billion, and the consequences of that would be staggering, particularly at this moment where we face challenges across the globe.

We have near-peer competition with Russia and China, dangerous developments in East Africa, and situations across the board where we need to be ready to go looking at the threats, not looking internally at how we are going to pay to keep the lights on.

Again, to avoid this self-inflicted damage, we have to pass a budget, as well as this authorization bill.

Let me conclude by once again thanking Ranking Member Inhofe and my colleagues on the committee for working thoughtfully on a bipartisan basis to develop this important piece of legislation.

I would also like to thank the staff who worked tirelessly on this bill throughout the year--and tirelessly is an understatement. While we were leaving after our last vote, they were staying hours later to get this bill in shape to pass and then to begin our dialogue with the House. It is the staff of both sides. I salute my Republican

colleagues' staffers and my staffers for their job.

I look forward to a thoughtful debate on the issues as we go forward.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back all remaining time on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 144, H.R. 4350, the National Defense Authorization Act; that if the motion to proceed is agreed to, the Reed-Inhofe substitute amendment No. 3867, as modified with the changes at the desk, be called up and reported by number; further, that it be in order to call up the following amendments to the Reed-Inhofe substitute amendment No. 3867, as modified, in the order listed: 1, Reed No. 4775; 2, Hoeven No. 4482; 3, Sanders No. 4654; 4, Lee No. 4793; 5, Paul No. 4395; 6, Hawley No. 4140; 7, Peters-Portman No. 4799; 8, Scott of Florida, No. 4813 side- by-side to 4799; 9, Durbin-Lee No. 3939; 10, Cardin No. 3980; 11, Lujan-Crapo No. 4260; 12, King-Sasse No. 4784; 13, Cruz No. 4656; 14, Kaine No. 4133; 15, Hassan No. 4255; 16, Menendez No. 4786; 17, Marshall No. 4093; 18, Kennedy No. 4660; 19, Sanders No. 4722; 20, Portman No. 4540; that with the exception of the Reed amendment No. 4775, the Senate vote at 9:30 p.m. today in relation to any first- degree amendment offered in the order listed above, with 60 affirmative votes required for adoption of amendments in this agreement, and 2 minutes of debate, equally divided in the usual form, prior to each vote.

I object to the modification, Madam President.

Madam President.

I renew my request.

Madam President.

I object to the modification.

Madam President, I renew my request.

Madam President, I object to the modification.

Madam President, I renew my request.

Madam President, I object to the modification.

Madam President, I renew my original request.

Madam President, I object.

Madam President, I renew my original request.

Madam President, I object to the modification.

Madam President, I renew my original request.

Madam President, I object to the modification.

Madam President, I renew my original request.

Madam President, I believe I have the floor.

Madam President, we began this process for the National Defense Authorization Act months ago. In

July, in working closely with the ranking member and all of my colleagues on the committee, we passed a bipartisan National Defense Act which was focused on the fundamental rationale for our National Defense Act: the men and women of the Armed Forces; the equipment that they need; the new technology, which is absolutely necessary as we go forward; the family lives of these men and women and their development; along with the weapons that they will use.

This has been the focal point. As a result, we produced a committee report with a bipartisan majority of 23 to 3.

We continued this bipartisan approach as we came into the floor debate. We have already included in the substitute amendment, which will be offered, approximately 60 amendments, on a bipartisan basis, that cover a range of topics which have been agreed to by both sides. Again, everything we have done to this point has been on a bipartisan basis.

Indeed, this unanimous consent that I have proposed is bipartisan. It incorporates amendments from both my Republican colleagues and my Democrat colleagues. It does so, as we must, in a way that accommodates as many as we can, but we cannot and have never been able to guarantee that every amendment offered could be incorporated into the bill.

So what we have here is, in a way, a crossroads. We have tried since the very inception to produce a bipartisan bill and a bipartisan floor action and a bipartisan final vote on the National Defense Act in the U.S. Senate.

We have to get there because--again, I can hear my colleagues talk about Nord Stream, and that is very interesting and a very important issue; I can hear them talk about border security; I can hear them talk about forced labor in China; I can hear them talk about illegal immigrants.

Ultimately, this is about the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States, and we can't leave them behind. The proposals might be meritorious, but we have to move forward and give those men and women the tools they need to defend the Nation.

Again, I can't emphasize enough how, in working together with my colleagues and ranking member, we have tried at every juncture to be inclusive, to be bipartisan, to have recognized as many of the issues as we could. And we have to do that in the context, frankly, of the fact, in the Senate, as has been demonstrated tonight, one person can stand up and say: No, I didn't get what I want, and no one is going to get anything.

I think we have done a very good job, frankly--and I might not be objective--in producing a national defense act that, at this juncture and with these additional amendments, would be more than worthy for final consideration by the Senate.

But what is, again, somewhat disconcerting to me is that, by analogy, you can say everything is national defense. But the people who ultimately suffer, if we cannot get to passage and then deliberation with the House and then a final bill sent to the White House--it is not only that these problems that we have tried to address be unaddressed, but we will send a very powerful message to the men and women in the Armed Forces: We don't have your back. We are too busy squabbling amongst ourselves about issues of the border, Nord Stream, and other issues.

So I would hope that we could move forward. The regret is that at this juncture, we are abandoning approximately 20 amendments on a bipartisan basis that would have addressed many of the concerns of my colleagues in the Senate. Some are directly related to national defense and some are not, but they were agreed to by both sides, and they would be added to this legislation.

But at this juncture, our responsibility is--and it cannot be avoided--moving forward, of passing our defense bill, and then working with the House to send up to the President of the United States a bill worthy of the sacrifice and service of those who wear the uniform of the United States.

With that, I would yield to the ranking member.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.