Floor Statements

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that Chairman Inhofe is in route to provide his comments, and I just want to begin by thanking him for his tremendous leadership. Without his dedication to a bipartisan, thoughtful process, we would not be here today, and it is the hallmark of his leadership throughout the years we have worked together. I anticipate his arrival.

In order to expedite the vote, I will proceed.

Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the confirmation of Lloyd Austin to be the Secretary of Defense of the United States.

General Austin is an exceptionally qualified leader with a long and distinguished career in the U.S. military. He has served at the highest echelons of the Army and capped his service as the commander of U.S. Central Command. His character and integrity are unquestioned, and he possesses the knowledge and skills to effectively lead the Pentagon.

The United States faces many complex security threats. If confirmed as Secretary of Defense, General Austin will lead the Department during a time when U.S. strategic priorities have shifted to focus increasingly on near-peer competition with China and Russia. The Department must also transform how it operates with an increased focus on critical technologies like artificial intelligence, quantum computing, biotechnology, and cyber security, while also emphasizing rapid delivery of advanced new weapons systems on timelines that keep pace with technological change.

In addition, President Biden must address the urgent and dire challenges that few of us would have anticipated 4 years ago. Our country is in the midst of a pandemic that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and infected millions more and resulted in billions in economic damage, and the virus is still not under control. Recently, it was revealed that large segments of the Federal Government and major companies were hacked by Russia. We are still trying to ascertain the extent of the breach, but it could be the most significant cyber intrusion in the history of our country or perhaps the world. This event, too, should prompt us to move promptly to fill Cabinet positions that are critical to our national security.

Unfortunately, the Department of Defense is adrift and in desperate need of steadfast leadership. Over the course of the past 4 years, there has been repeated turnover at senior levels of the Department and a concerted effort to purposefully leave multiple civilian offices unfilled, necessitating the installment of career or midlevel officials into positions in an acting capacity.

Unlike other nominees for Cabinet positions, Congress must provide, as Senator McConnell indicated, an exception for General Austin to serve as Secretary of Defense. Under the current statute, individuals are prohibited from appointment if they are within 7 years of military service. Congress found itself in a similar situation 4 years ago when President Trump nominated Gen. James Mattis to be the Secretary of Defense.

Prior to General Austin's confirmation hearing, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing on civilian control of the Armed Forces that focused on the erosion of civil-military relations. At the hearing, valid concerns were raised about providing another waiver so soon after Secretary Mattis. However, at his nomination hearing earlier this week, General Austin pledged his commitment to repairing civil- military relations while also empowering civilian personnel within the Department of Defense. These are critical commitments by General Austin and ones that I support.

Therefore, yesterday I voted in favor of the legislation to provide General Austin with an exception to serve as Secretary of Defense, and I was pleased the legislation received strong bipartisan support.

General Austin is an outstanding choice to serve as Secretary of Defense. I am proud to support his nomination, given the unique challenges we face. I think from now on, in a few moments, we can refer to him as Secretary Austin, which is the appropriate title for his role.

With that, I yield the floor to my colleague, the chairman.

Madam President, I would ask unanimous consent to yield back all time.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I rise today to salute a hometown hero, a dedicated journalist, and a trusted newsman, Jim Taricani, who sadly passed away last month after decades of contributions to Rhode Island and the field of journalism throughout this country.

This is just an example of the tributes that he won by a very, very enthusiastic population of Rhode Island. This is the front page of the Providence Journal on the day of his funeral service.

He was a gentleman. He was a man of integrity, a man of fairness--the qualities that define a great journalist. In fact, the words ``great journalist'' and ``Jim Taricani'' are synonymous.

He leaves behind an extraordinary legacy. He was an award-winning investigative journalist who earned multiple Emmys and the coveted Edward R. Murrow Award, and he was a true champion of the First Amendment.

Jim grew up in Connecticut and served the U.S. Air Force, where he was stationed in Europe as a military police officer. But he made his mark when he moved to Rhode Island and embarked on a career in broadcast journalism, first in radio, and then over a 30-year career at WJAR that spanned from the late 1970s through 2014.

Jim began his stint for NBC 10--WJAR--as a general assignment reporter but gained notoriety for covering big stories and uncovering the truth. He went on to found the station's investigative team in 1979.

He earned a reputation for taking on tough stories about organized crime and political corruption. In reporting on these difficult topics, Jim's own integrity, selflessness, and fairness shone through every day and every moment.

Indeed, Jim didn't just talk about principles; he lived them. In February 2001, Jim obtained an FBI surveillance video from a confidential source. It showed a public employee accepting a bribe in the famed Operation Plunder Dome case, which transfixed Rhode Island and Providence, its capital, for many, many months. It marked a significant moment when people could see and hear what corruption looked like. Rather than following a court order to reveal the source of the tape, Jim stood up for the First Amendment, and he was sentenced to 6 months of home confinement.

Several of Jim's friends and colleagues wrote letters to the judge on Jim's behalf, including Christiane Amanpour, who interned for Jim in the early 1980s, when she was a student at URI.

She noted that Jim Taricani taught her ``that journalism when done right is a noble profession, that America's unique commitment to freedom of the press is vital to a functioning democracy, [and] that holding public officials to account is the imperative of a corruption- free society.''

Indeed, that is what Jim set out to do through his reporting.

He became a strong advocate for other journalists, testifying before Congress about freedom of the press and the challenges journalists face in trying to keep the public informed about their government. His help, his actions, and his activity spurred action. The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced Senator Schumer's bipartisan media shield bill. But the work to protect journalists, and to ensure that they can responsibly do their job and inform the public, continues. We must find a bipartisan way forward that balances freedom of the press and public safety.

Jim was also a tremendous advocate for the American Heart Association. A survivor of cardiovascular disease and multiple heart attacks, Jim documented his own process of undergoing a heart transplant, from uncertainty to recovery. Here is how the Providence Journal's television critic described it:

Listed--the title refers to the word from doctors that

every heart transplant candidate longs to hear--is the most

powerful human interest story I have ever seen on local

television. It is courageous first-person journalism, a story

that you may never forget.

Taricani, who kept a diary throughout his hospital stay, wanted to have his experience videotaped in order to produce a donor awareness video for the American Heart Association. It was never his intention to broadcast the account, but when the news director, Dan Salamone, suggested it would reach a broader audience if televised, Taricani agreed.

That was Jim. He was not looking to be the story but was willing to share his story if it could help others. Thoughtful, tenacious, and tough--that was Jim Taricani. By the way, 32 days after receiving his new heart, Jim was back at work, which tells you everything you need to know about how passionate he was about journalism and how much he loved his job.

Undoubtedly, the love of his life was his wife, Laurie White, who is a force in her own right and has taken up Jim's cause of freedom of the press and encouraging the next generation of aspiring young journalists to go out and make a difference. She has endowed a lecture series on First Amendment rights at the University of Rhode Island in Jim's honor, which is a fitting tribute.

She said:

Journalists bring sunlight to the stories that otherwise

may stay hidden in the shadows. It is my hope that this

lecture series will continue his legacy of inspiring the next

generation of ethical and responsible journalists.

I expect the series will help increase public understanding of the importance of a free press and the First Amendment for decades to come.

As a journalist and as a person, nothing stopped Jim from following the facts, uncovering the truth, sharing important stories, and enlightening his audience. We are all, in Rhode Island and across the country, deeply saddened by the loss of Jim Taricani, but his example and legacy endure. That legacy will sustain us and inspire us to continue working together to build a just and decent country, and for that we are all grateful to Jim.

Madam President, I yield the floor to my distinguished colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I want to discuss Russia's sustained campaign of attacks on our democracy and how the President's inability to take these threats seriously harms our national security and the integrity of our elections.

In the run up to his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin this week at the G20 Summit, the President showed no signs that he planned to warn Russia against interfering in our democratic elections in 2020. In press interviews, he said that he ``may'' ask Putin not interfere in 2020 and told another group of reporters, ``I will have a very good conversation with him . . . what I say is none of your business.''

Following today's meeting with Putin, an autocrat who continues to conduct hybrid warfare operations against our democracy, President Trump made light of this threat in a joking manner. In response to a reporter's question, he apparently grinned as he told Putin, ``don't meddle in our election.''

This is not a joke. This is about deterring the Kremlin from continuing to attack our democracy. He should be using every tool at his disposal to direct a whole of government and whole of society effort to counter these attacks, not emboldening Putin to escalate his aggression. It is exactly the business of the American people to know that our elections are free from interference and that we can trust the President of the United States to deliver tough messages to deter foreign adversaries.

Relatedly the President can't seem to grasp what's wrong with accepting ``dirt'' on his political opponents from foreign adversaries. In a recent interview with ABC News, the President made it clear that he sees nothing wrong with compromising our national security if it advances his own political interests. When asked if his campaign would accept information on his opponents from Russia, China, or other countries during the 2020 campaign, the President responded: ``I think you might want to listen . . . there's nothing wrong with listening.''

He denied that this type of assistance from a foreign adversary was interference, adding: ``They have information. I think I'd take it.'' It was only after being heavily criticized that President Trump reversed course, telling Fox and Friends ``Of course, you give it to the FBI or report it to the attorney general or somebody like that . . . You couldn't have that happen in our country.'' But, of course, it already happened. President Trump's inability or unwillingness to recognize it is both completely wrong-headed and dangerous.

The President's response belies the undeniable fact that Russia attacked our democracy in the 2016 election with an information warfare campaign, and tried to do it again in the 2018 midterms.

Trump initially made Russia's interference sound like run of the mill, opposition research--``oppo research'' he called it--and claimed everyone does it, but this is not about politics as usual. This is about Russia advancing its strategic interests and using tools from its hybrid arsenal, including information warfare and malign influence operation, to do so. Russia seeks to inject itself into our political process to achieve its goals of promoting the candidates favorable to Russia and discrediting those that are not, weakening the American public's faith in the integrity of democracy, and undermining the United States' standing globally.

President Trump's failure to grasp that there is a problem with someone in his high office--or any candidate for public office for that matter--accepting dirt on political opponents from a foreign government or national is troubling on many levels, but importantly, it harms our national security. It undermines our ability as a nation to counter Russia and other adversaries and our ability to protect our elections. The President should be leading a comprehensive, meaningful approach to deter Russia and others who seek to target our democracy. Instead, he is announcing to the world that our elections are open to manipulation.

Some would have you believe that, with the release of the Mueller report, the case of Russian interference in the 2016 election is closed, that our work is done, and that Congress can stop caring about the attack on our democracy and the integrity of our political system. The White House, the Attorney General, and congressional Republican leaders are sending a coordinated message that there is nothing to see here, folks.

But no matter how they try, we can't forget that Russia attacked our democracy in 2016, that Russia tried to do it again in 2018, and that it continues to deploy hybrid operations against us, our allies, and our partners. Just recently, a report issued by the European Union concluded that Russia conducted ``continued and sustained'' information warfare campaigns against the EU Parliamentary elections this spring. We must continue to work to highlight these types of findings including those made by the special counsel and their implications going forward. As Special Counsel Mueller's powerful press statement from his investigation underscored: ``there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election.'' Mueller added, ``And that allegation deserves the attention of every American.''

The special counsel' s report and related indictments described these operations in great detail. Let's look specifically at key aspects of the Russian information warfare campaign that the report laid out.

First, Mueller makes clear that Kremlin-linked operators sought to help the candidate the Kremlin favored and whose election would serve Russia's interests. The report describes how ``A Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.'' It also found that ``[a]s early as 2014, the [Kremlin-linked Internet Research Agency] instructed its employees to target U.S. persons who could be used to advance its operational goals.''

Second, Mueller describes in detail the Russian spying operation to steal ``dirt'' on the opposition candidate and then use that stolen information against her. The report states unequivocally, ``[a] Russian intelligence service conducted computer intrusion operations against entities, employees and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents.''

Third, the Mueller established multiple contacts by Russian Government officials or their proxies with the Trump campaign to establish relationships. The report states: ``[t]he investigation also established numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.''

Finally, the Mueller report definitively concludes that Russia saw its interests as aligned with and served by a Trump Presidency, that Russia conducted a campaign to interfere in the 2016 election for the purpose of helping the Trump campaign, and that the Trump campaign hoped to benefit from the fruits of that foreign election interference. Ultimately, however, the Mueller investigation could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Trump campaign or its associates conspired with the Russian Government in its election interference.

As the report states: ``[a]lthough the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with

the Russian government in its election interference activities.''

As the special counsel's report details, Trump did not shy away and, in fact, sought to benefit from help from Russia in the 2016 election. Trump campaign associates, including his son, son-in law, and campaign manager, met with Russian agents to hear potential dirt about Secretary Clinton, which was presented to the Donald Trump, Jr. as ``part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump.'' Even in hindsight, Trump said he most likely wouldn't have contacted the FBI about that meeting, telling ABC News, ``I have seen a lot of things over my life. I don't think in my whole life I've ever called the FBI. In my whole life. You don't call the FBI.''

Think about that statement for a moment. Here is the President of the United States, who has taken an oath to faithfully execute the laws of the United States, declaring that people should not go to law enforcement with evidence of foreign interference in our political process.

But, of course, candidate Trump went further than simply not reporting foreign attempts to influence our elections. The special counsel detailed how Trump embraced the support of a foreign adversary by calling on Russia to hack his political opponent and disseminate the stolen information. On July 27, 2016, Trump announced publicly during a press conference, ``Russia, if you are listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will be rewarded mightily by our press.'' The Mueller report confirmed that a Russian military intelligence unit, commonly referred to as the GRU, tried to assist Trump with those efforts, finding, ``within approximately five hours of Trump's statement, GRU officers targeted for the first time Clinton's personal office.''

The special counsel also detailed how the Trump campaign ``showed interest in WikiLeaks's releases of documents and welcomed their potential to damage candidate Clinton.'' Furthermore, the Trump campaign continued to promote WikiLeaks after it was apparent that WikiLeaks was being used by the GRU to disseminate information stolen by the Russians. On October 7, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement naming the WikiLeaks disclosures as ``consistent with the Russian-directed efforts'' to influence public opinion. If not prior to the release of that joint statement, certainly by that point the President and his campaign should have known better. Instead of calling the FBI, the Trump campaign strategized how to benefit from Russia's stolen information. The Mueller report states: ``by the late summer of 2016, the Trump Campaign was planning a press strategy, a communications campaign, and messaging based on the possible release of Clinton emails by WikiLeaks.'' A related indictment from the special counsel detailed how the Trump campaign applauded WikiLeaks's release of John Podesta's emails starting on October 7, 2016. In the last month of the campaign alone, the President publicly boasted of his love of WikiLeaks at least 124 times.

As I mentioned, the special counsel did not find sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Trump campaign's embracing of the benefits of Kremlin or Kremlin-linked operations constituted a crime. But is it okay for a candidate to get elected President, or elected to any public office, by capitalizing on information stolen by a foreign adversary? Will that be acceptable the next time around? Will foreign information warfare campaigns targeting our elections be accepted as normal from now on?

Based on his public remarks, it certainly seems acceptable to President Trump and his defenders. This is not theoretical. It happened in 2016. Now the President put it out there that he would meet with foreign adversaries again in the 2020 campaign to hear what information they have on his opponents. He is emboldened to do it again. While, as I mentioned, he later changed his position, it still leaves room for doubt about his true intentions and invites our adversaries to try and compromise our election. Trump publicly undermined his own FBI Director, Christopher Wray, who testified in front of the Senate that, ``If any public official or member of any campaign is contacted by any nation-state or anybody acting on behalf of a nation-state about influencing or interfering with our election, then that's something that the FBI would want to know about it.''

When asked about Wray's testimony, President Trump bluntly said ``The FBI Director is wrong.'' Trump's statements were so disturbing that the FEC Commissioner responded by saying ``Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election. This is not a novel concept.''

The President's actions also clearly aided ongoing Russian information warfare operations. This is not the standard of conduct and the public trust that goes with political office. The willingness to embrace a foreign adversary in this fashion is unpatriotic and defies the basic norms of this Nation.

The Trump campaign's series of foreign contacts in the 2016 election and the President's continued willingness to accept assistance from a foreign government make it clear that Congress must act to prevent future interference efforts. That is why I am a cosponsor of the Foreign Influence Reporting in Elections Act, or FIRE Act, introduced by Senator Warner. The FIRE Act would require all campaign officials to report, within 1 week, any contacts with foreign nationals attempting to make campaign donations or otherwise collaborate with the campaign to the Federal Election Commission. The FEC would in turn have to notify the FBI within 1 week. It is in all our interest to ensure that we can defend against foreign attacks on our democratic institutions and reporting these kinds of contacts to the appropriate authorities is our first line of defense. I am disappointed that my Republican colleagues blocked Senator Warner's attempt to pass the FIRE Act, even after many of them insisted that politicians should contact the FBI if ever contacted or offered help by a foreign government.

This is not a Democratic or a Republican issue. This is an issue of our national security and the integrity of our free and fair elections. Russia exploited vulnerabilities in our open society to advance its own interests and the Russian tactics were encouraged and amplified by a candidate who was seeking our nation's highest office. We have every indication that the Russians are poised to do it again, and the President has shown time and again--including today for the world to see--that he doesn't see anything wrong with foreign interference if it works to his advantage.

We cannot let this moment pass without speaking up for the integrity of our democracy and our values. Congress, as a body, and we, as a country, must speak out and say this is not acceptable. It is not acceptable for our candidates for political office to seek to engage with our adversaries or foreign authoritarian regimes to advance their political campaigns. It is not acceptable to meet with foreign agents about getting stolen information on your opponents, information acquired by foreign espionage. This is a violation of the public trust that is inherent in any political office and which any candidate for public office must uphold to be worthy of the American people's support. I urge my colleagues to speak out in condemning this conduct for the sake of our democracy and to preserve the American people's faith in the integrity of our electoral system.

Mr. President, veterans who have become disabled during their service to our Nation should have their student loans forgiven without delay, without cumbersome red tape. Unfortunately, that is not the case today, which is why I am introducing legislation with my colleague from Georgia, Senator Isakson, to require the Department of Education to automatically discharge student loans for veterans who are totally and permanently disabled.

In the fall of 2018, the Department of Education and the Department of Veterans Affairs announced a data-matching program under which the Department of Veterans Affairs would disclose data to the Department of Education concerning veterans who are determined to be 100 percent disabled or individually unemployable. The Department of Education would then alert eligible veterans with Federal student loans of the opportunity to apply for debt relief.

This initiative was an important step forward in improving the process for disabled veterans, but it did not go far enough. Too many eligible veterans are still saddled with student loans that they cannot repay. This spring, in response to hearing questions, the Department of Education reported that of the over 40,000 veterans who were identified as eligible for loan forgiveness through the matching program, fewer than half submitted the required paperwork and, as a result, have not had their loans forgiven. Many of these individuals are currently in default on their loans, which has dire financial repercussions for them and their families.

We can and must do better. As many Members of Congress have urged, along with veterans' service organizations, and 51 bipartisan State attorneys general, we should automatically discharge the loans for eligible veteran student loan borrowers identified through the matching program. Previously, concern about potential tax liability was identified as a reason for not moving forward on automatic discharge of these loans. However, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 removed the Federal tax liability, and we should now move forward without delay to automatically forgive these loans.

Our legislation requires the Departments of Education and Veterans Affairs to conduct a computer matching at least twice per year of individuals with student loans who have received a rating of total disability or who have been determined to be unemployable. It also requires the Departments to work together to address minor discrepancies in the data to ensure that no veteran falls through the cracks due to a clerical error. Finally, it requires the Department of Education to automatically discharge student loans for individuals identified as eligible through the matching program, unless the borrower opts out because the Department has identified a potential State tax liability.

We are proud to have the support of many veterans' organizations for this legislation, including High Ground Advocacy, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Student Veterans of America, The Retired Enlisted Association, Veterans Education Success, and U.S. Army Warrant Officers Association. I urge all my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation and pushing for its swift passage. Veterans who have served our nation and are now unable to work because of a service-connected disability should not have to worry about student loan payments.

Mr. President, veterans who have become disabled during their service to our Nation should have their student loans forgiven without delay, without cumbersome red tape. Unfortunately, that is not the case today, which is why I am introducing legislation with my colleague from Georgia, Senator Isakson, to require the Department of Education to automatically discharge student loans for veterans who are totally and permanently disabled.

In the fall of 2018, the Department of Education and the Department of Veterans Affairs announced a data-matching program under which the Department of Veterans Affairs would disclose data to the Department of Education concerning veterans who are determined to be 100 percent disabled or individually unemployable. The Department of Education would then alert eligible veterans with Federal student loans of the opportunity to apply for debt relief.

This initiative was an important step forward in improving the process for disabled veterans, but it did not go far enough. Too many eligible veterans are still saddled with student loans that they cannot repay. This spring, in response to hearing questions, the Department of Education reported that of the over 40,000 veterans who were identified as eligible for loan forgiveness through the matching program, fewer than half submitted the required paperwork and, as a result, have not had their loans forgiven. Many of these individuals are currently in default on their loans, which has dire financial repercussions for them and their families.

We can and must do better. As many Members of Congress have urged, along with veterans' service organizations, and 51 bipartisan State attorneys general, we should automatically discharge the loans for eligible veteran student loan borrowers identified through the matching program. Previously, concern about potential tax liability was identified as a reason for not moving forward on automatic discharge of these loans. However, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 removed the Federal tax liability, and we should now move forward without delay to automatically forgive these loans.

Our legislation requires the Departments of Education and Veterans Affairs to conduct a computer matching at least twice per year of individuals with student loans who have received a rating of total disability or who have been determined to be unemployable. It also requires the Departments to work together to address minor discrepancies in the data to ensure that no veteran falls through the cracks due to a clerical error. Finally, it requires the Department of Education to automatically discharge student loans for individuals identified as eligible through the matching program, unless the borrower opts out because the Department has identified a potential State tax liability.

We are proud to have the support of many veterans' organizations for this legislation, including High Ground Advocacy, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Student Veterans of America, The Retired Enlisted Association, Veterans Education Success, and U.S. Army Warrant Officers Association. I urge all my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation and pushing for its swift passage. Veterans who have served our nation and are now unable to work because of a service-connected disability should not have to worry about student loan payments.

Mr. President, I rise to join Chairman Inhofe in support of the fiscal year 2020 Defense authorization bill. I thank the chairman for his great bipartisan leadership, thoughtful, sensible, and delivering what I think is an excellent piece of legislation.

It was based on thorough hearings, discussions, and debate on both sides of the aisle, and it came out of the committee with strong bipartisan support. I hope it enjoys that support on final passage.

As the chairman indicated, the bill provides for many different aspects that are necessary to our national defense. It provides a pay raise for the men and women of our Armed Forces who do so much for us. It includes over 30 provisions to address the privatized military housing crisis. It authorizes military construction in almost every State in this country. It provides funding and authorities for our military personnel on the frontlines and for those who are back in the United States building the ships and the tanks and advancing the technologies we need for the future fight.

This bill also contains numerous amendments from many of my colleagues, again, on both sides of the aisle, on other issues of great importance, such as the Intelligence Authorization Act, the authorization of the Maritime Administration, and provisions addressing the fentanyl crisis and the dangers of PFOS-PFAS in our water.

There are numerous provisions here that go beyond the narrow definition of the defense establishment. They are bipartisan, and they are strongly supported by both sides of the aisle.

Again, let me thank Senator Inhofe for his leadership. It made a great difference in terms of his approach to this important legislation.

Finally, I would like to thank the committee staff. Particularly, I would like to thank the majority staff and their staff director, John Bonsell. He did a superb job--they did. ``Diligence,'' ``professionalism,'' and ``bipartisanship'' were the watchwords of their efforts. I thank them for that.

Let me thank my staff. In particular, Jody Bennett, Carolyn Chuhta, Jon Clark, Jonathan Epstein, Jorie Feldman, Creighton Greene, Ozge Guzelsu, Gary Leeling, Kirk McConnell, Maggie McNamara, Bill Monahan, Mike Noblet, John Quirk, Arun Seraphin, Fiona Tomlin, and my staff director, Elizabeth King, who, with John Bonsell, did a superb job.

Let me thank the floor staff who have helped us over the last few days immensely.

I urge all of my colleagues to join the chairman and me in supporting this excellent legislation.

I yield the floor.

Vote on Amendment No. 764

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

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the escalating tensions between the United States and Iran, my concern about the administration's current approach--a path that I am worried will lead us to war--and my support for the Udall amendment to the NDAA, which will be voted on tomorrow.

I believe that diplomatic efforts, in concert with our international partners, should be pursued immediately to avoid another unnecessary armed conflict in the Middle East.

Let me be clear. Iran is a dangerous and destabilizing force in the region. It supports terrorist proxies and meddles in the internal affairs of other states. Iran continues to pursue ballistic missile capabilities in violation of international norms and abuses the rights of its own people. Unfortunately, the administration's chosen course of action with respect to Iran has isolated the United States from the international community and made it more difficult to collectively address these issues.

The administration's actions and rhetoric related to Iran have created a credibility deficit. This is a fast-changing and dangerous situation, and it is clear that there is not a consensus within the international community with respect to Iran's plans and intentions.

Given these disconnects, it is imperative for the administration to provide Congress with current, unvarnished intelligence so that we may reach substantiated conclusions.

Taking a step back, it is important to recount the actions that have precipitated the current state of affairs. Current tensions are an entirely predictable outcome of the administration's ill-conceived approach to Iran.

Despite then-Candidate Trump's campaign rhetoric, I and others hoped that he would heed the advice of the advisers with respect to the Iran nuclear agreement, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or the JCPOA.

For example, despite personal concerns about the JCPOA before it was signed, former Secretary of Defense Mattis told the Armed Services Committee at his confirmation hearing that ``when America gives her word, we have to live up to it and work with our allies.''

In October 2017, Secretary Mattis told the Armed Services Committee that he believed it was in our national interest to remain in the JCPOA. General Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, echoed these sentiments at the time and cautioned that, in his words, ``the U.S. will incur damage vis-a-vis our allies if we unilaterally withdraw from the JCPOA. Our allies will be less likely to cooperate with us on future military action to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and less likely to cooperate with us on countering other destabilizing aspects of Iranian behavior that threaten our collective interests.''

The administration should have sought to work with the international community to address the challenges posed by Iran by building upon the foundation of the JCPOA rather than squandering that opportunity in favor of ``putting Iran on notice'' and other inflammatory rhetoric.

Just over a year ago, President Trump made the disastrous decision to unilaterally withdraw the United States from the JCPOA and reimpose nuclear-related sanctions, in violation of previous U.S. commitments under the deal. Since withdrawing from the deal, the Trump administration has taken a series of additional escalatory actions, including the imposition of new sanctions on various aspects of the Iranian economy; cancellation of waivers that previously allowed importation of Iranian oil by China, India, Japan, South Korea, and Turkey; and the designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps-- often referred to as the IRGC--as a foreign terrorist organization.

The designation of a foreign government entity as a foreign terrorist organization was unprecedented, and it is not clear what purpose it served other than to unnecessarily raise tensions with Iran. As I learned during a recent visit to Iraq and Afghanistan, the IRGC designation has significantly complicated our relationships with foreign partners who described the action as provocative and destabilizing.

While the JCPOA was not a perfect deal, it was a necessary deal. It is important to remember that when the JCPOA was signed, Iran's ``breakout'' timeline--the amount of time Iran would need to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon--was only 2 to 3 months. Even by the most conservative estimates, the JCPOA stretched that timeline to more than a year.

By all accounts, the JCPOA has worked as intended. The JCPOA commits Iran to never seeking to develop or acquire a nuclear weapon and effectively cuts off all pathways for Iran to achieve a nuclear weapon until at least 2030. The agreement dramatically reduced Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium and the number of installed centrifuges. It also prevented Iran from producing weapons-grade plutonium and has subjected Iran to the most intrusive monitoring regime in the world to ensure it is living up to its commitments.

The JCPOA was appropriately built upon the concept of ``distrust and verify,'' and I support efforts by our European partners, as well as Russia and China, to preserve the JCPOA despite challenges the Trump administration has put in their way.

According to General Dunford, in the absence of the JCPOA, Iran would likely resume its nuclear weapons program, and, in his words, ``a nuclear-armed Iran would likely be more aggressive in its actions and more dangerous in its consequences.''

Unfortunately, the administration's withdrawal from the agreement and reimposition of sanctions has left us isolated from our allies and partners while emboldening the hardliners in Iran.

In May of last year, subsequent to the decision to withdraw from the JCPOA, Secretary of State Pompeo articulated a set of 12 ``demands'' and indicated that ``major changes'' would need to be made by Iran before sanctions relief would be provided. The administration has sent mixed messages on whether its demands should be viewed as a set of preconditions for discussions on sanctions relief. The demands outlined by Secretary Pompeo are widely viewed as maximalist and leave little room for negotiation, especially given that the administration has already reneged on previous diplomatic commitments related to Iran's nuclear program.

Without greater certainty by the administration on what specific actions would need to be taken by Iran to relieve U.S. economic pressure, I fear that Iran has little incentive to engage in negotiations.

Indeed, the administration has followed that initial set of 12 demands with a succession of orchestrated steps to force Iran into an ever-smaller corner that only serves to increase the odds of miscalculation and reduce diplomatic opportunities. The economic sanctions by the United States have left the Iranian economy reeling, with its gross domestic product shrinking by 5 percent and the inflation rate rising by 50 percent.

As part of this so-called ``Maximum Pressure'' campaign, the administration has just announced personal sanctions against Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and other Iranian leadership. The Iranians have responded by indicating that these sanctions mean ``the permanent closure of the doors of diplomacy.''

Rather than modifying its behavior, Iran has responded to these demands and subsequent escalatory actions by increasing its malign activities in the region, including in Yemen and Syria, and announcing that it would stop complying with certain aspects of the JCPOA. If Iran follows through on threats to completely withdraw from the JCPOA and resume nuclear weapons development activities, the United States and the international community will be in a much less unified and therefore weaker negotiating position than we had leading up to the

Mr. President, first let me thank Senator Inhofe for his leadership and his cooperation, which has gotten us to this point in the consideration of the fiscal year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act. The chairman has been thoughtful. He has been very reasonable.

We had a record hearing in our committee in terms of the number of amendments we dealt with and how we did it in a very collegial fashion. As a result, we were able to once again, as he has indicated, include 93 additional amendments in the substitute package that has been submitted. That is testimony to the good work of the chairman and the outstanding work of our staff, who have been working very diligently, and I appreciate it.

This is a very good bill. It passed out of committee by a vote of 25 to 2--totally bipartisan vote. It contains many needed authorities, funding authorizations, and reforms that will help the men and women of our Armed Services.

As both of us have indicated, it also contains numerous amendments from many of my colleagues on other issues of great importance, such as, for example, the intelligence authorization. We have included in this legislation the work of the Intelligence Committee not just for this year but the past 3 years. So we will now have up-to-date authorities for the intelligence community. We will authorize the Maritime Administration. We have provisions that range far and wide. We have an amendment dealing with the fentanyl crisis. We have an amendment dealing with the PFOS/PFAS in our water around military bases. This is a significant crisis we are beginning to recognize more and more each day.

This legislation is extremely supportive of the men and women in uniform and, indeed, touches on many other important aspects that are necessary as we move forward.

As we both said in our opening statements last week, we would like to have a robust debate on this bill and vote on amendments. It was the process for many years. We need to get back to the process where we have amendments--some of them contentious, some of them not so contentious, but there would be an agreed-upon path, a reasonable time for debate, and then a vote.

In fact, the Chairman and I try to work together. When we have differences, we say: Well, that will be resolved by a vote. If you can't agree to a consensus compromise, then in this Chamber you ultimately hope you can get a vote, and that will be the deciding factor.

I understand there are differences about the proceedings, particularly with respect to the issue of potential military action against Iran. I do not think anyone will argue with the fact that it is a very pressing issue and the Senate has a role we are obligated to fulfill. Last week, the chairman and I were both at the White House, and the President very graciously listened to our thoughts and ideas about the response to the drone strike.

We are in a situation where potential conflict or interaction with Iran is not hypothetical. Just 4, 5 days ago, we were confronted with a very serious situation. The President made a decision not to use a kinetic strike on Iran. I think that was an appropriate decision. But we are at a point now where the Senate as an institution--not as individuals accommodating the President but as an institution--has to take a position, I feel.

We understand, too, that as the administration applies more and more pressure on the Iranian regime, there will be several likelihoods. One will be that these reactions to our pressure will take place. As the President indicated in his televised comments, his first sense was this was probably not officially authorized, that it may have been a subordinate who had taken the action, which had minimized, to a degree, the severity. Of course, the most significant factor of all was that we had lost an expensive piece of equipment, but, thank goodness, we didn't lose any American personnel. Nevertheless, this pressure campaign is producing a counterreaction, and that counterreaction could be more and more dangerous to our interests. It could escalate. It would create a situation in which the question of armed conflict with Iran will not be, as I said, theoretical, but something we will have to confront.

The dangers of miscalculation and escalation on both sides are acute at the moment. So we have to, I think, as a Senate take a position with respect to this issue. That is why I think the amendment is extremely important.

What I would hope we would all like to see is that we are able to accomplish two things--one, to have an adequate debate and a vote on this amendment. There may be other amendments people will propose on which they will feel strongly about having votes, and we could consider those also; two, our ability to conclude our debate on the Defense authorization bill and move forward. I don't think we have given up on that pathway yet.

I think we are still trying to find a pathway to address these critical issues of national security, with respect to there being a potential conflict with Iran as well as our finishing this bill in a timely fashion. I don't think it will be months from now but really days from now or a week or more from now that we will finish this bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues to find this path forward.

Again, the chairman has been extremely responsive and thoughtful about this, and his views and participation will be critical to these efforts.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, pursuant to the order in place, we recess.

Mr. President, I just ask permission to speak after Senator Inhofe as the ranking minority member and comanager of the legislation.

Mr. President, I commend the chairman for the bipartisan and thoughtful way he has approached this entire process of crafting the National Defense Authorization Act for this year. We had a very successful markup. The result was a strong bipartisan vote of 25 to 2 on the committee. Subsequently, with our staff, we have done an extraordinary job. We have been able to include an additional 100 amendments, on a bipartisan basis, to the substitute. So we have been able, I think, to respond to all of the concerns of our colleagues or very many of these concerns of our colleagues.

The chairman has indicated some of the strengths of the bill. We have increased our operations and maintenance funding so our readiness stature and posture is increasing. One area, too, that I think is very important is the fundamental reform of privatized housing which was a real problem that we discovered. Again, the chairman led two very thorough hearings in which we had not only the operators but also the families who live there. The legislation before us contains significant improvements in the privatized family housing at the Department of Defense. That is something critically important.

I, too, like the chairman, would like to see a very open amendment process so we can bring to the floor amendments that are important and linked to the national defense bill, have votes on these amendments, and then move forward.

Let me just conclude my brief remarks by thanking the chairman for his leadership.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague Senator Inhofe to discuss the fiscal year 2020 national defense authorization bill. I want to begin by thanking Senator Inhofe for his leadership and bipartisanship throughout the drafting of this bill.

Like you, Senator, I was living through the draft period, but when you join the Army at 17, you don't worry about the draft at 18, but we share that in common also.

The Armed Services Committee, as the chairman indicated, held a series of very thoughtful hearings that greatly informed the shaping of this bill. During last month's markup of the bill, we had a day of good discussion and debate, and the bill was voted out of the committee by a strong bipartisan vote of 25 to 2. I hope we can now have an equally productive consideration of this bill on the floor. I know Senator Inhofe and I are interested in having votes on amendments, including as many cleared amendments as possible.

I believe this bill contains many provisions that will benefit the Department and our servicemembers. There are a few areas I want to highlight, and then I look forward to turning to the consideration of amendments.

Several months ago--again, as the chairman indicated--this committee became acutely aware of a crisis in quality and safety of privatized military housing. After many weeks of visiting these houses, talking with the affected families, and holding two hearings, the committee included 32 separate provisions in this bill, addressing housing concerns. Several provisions address the need for increasing transparency, providing better controls on incentive payments to companies, requiring standardized leases and satisfaction surveys, and creating a discrete resolution process.

In some instances, the Department has already begun implementing some of the provisions, such as instituting a Tenant Bill of Rights.

Privatized housing is still a long way from where it needs to be in terms of providing quality homes for our military families, but this bill will begin to hold private companies accountable and ensure that the military services have new tools and capabilities to exercise oversight so we can all honor our commitment to our warfighters and to their families.

The bill includes a number of other provisions that support the quality of life for our military personnel, including a 3.1-percent pay raise, $40 million in supplemental impact aid for federally impacted local school districts, and $10 million in impact aid for severely disabled military children.

Unfortunately, the bill does not authorize additional funding to support pay raises for the Department's civilian workforce, as the administration proposed a pay freeze for the Federal Government civilian workforce for 2020.

I hope that as we move through this bill and the appropriations bill, we can rectify this error. The gap between the military pay raise and civilian pay raise has never been greater than what the administration has proposed in this year's budget. This is a shortsighted measure that will ultimately harm our national security.

We cannot hope to recruit and retain highly qualified individuals into the civil service and our military departments if salaries do not keep pace with the private sector or inflation. The Department's civilian workforce is a critical component of the total force and across the government a vital component to our national defense and national security.

Sexual Assault Prevention

Mr. President, the committee continues to enhance sexual assault prevention response efforts in the military. Over the years, we have enacted more than 100 provisions to address sexual assault. This year, we require the GAO to examine all sexual assault provisions enacted since 2003 to help us determine how they have been implemented and if they are making a difference.

This year's bill pays particular attention to prevention of sexual assault. It requires a comprehensive policy to improve education, training, empower and enhance the role of noncommissioned officers in the prevention of sexual assault, promote healthy relationships by addressing behaviors across the continuum of harm related to sexual assault, and foster the social courage to promote interventions.

This provision also addresses alcohol abuse, which is commonly associated with sexual assault.

Although the issue of sexual assault is a national problem--not just a military problem--we remain committed to ensuring the military is at the forefront of combating this scourge.

If the problem of sexual assault in the military is not adequately addressed, it will continue to undermine good order and discipline in our Armed Forces.

In the area of acquisition reform, the bill continues to improve the Pentagon's ability to build and buy the technologies and systems it needs to protect our national security while responsibly spending taxpayer money. For example, the bill mandates that the Defense Department continue to streamline acquisition and contracting processes, including through the use of small, focused teams, in accordance with the recommendations of the GAO.

The bill also seeks to ensure that the Defense Department is aware of the state of its industrial base and has better knowledge of the contractors with whom it works. The bill includes a provision that directs the Department to establish processes by which it can determine the actual ownership of the companies with which it signs contracts. We have seen instances where Chinese and Russian interests are the actual owners of some of the companies in our defense supply chain, raising grave concerns with the security and reliability of those contractors. We need to take steps to make sure that industrial base is secure.

The bill also strengthens the Department's ability to secure fair prices and good value from its contractors. The bill directs the Department to ensure that contractors supply accurate information on the price of goods, technologies, and services, and to report instances where contractors are not providing required pricing information. It also directs the Department to engage the academic community in order to develop more streamlined and data-driven methods to determine fair and reasonable pricing.

In the area of science and technology, I am pleased that the bill authorizes increases in funding for critical technology areas like cyber security, undersea warfare, and manufacturing.

The bill also directs the Department to develop a coordinated research program in emerging biotechnologies. Every day, we learn about new advances in biotechnology, ranging from gene editing to high-speed vaccine development and even cloning. We need to make sure the Defense Department has robust and informed research efforts in these areas, as well as initiatives to monitor the potential threats to our forces and the public that may emerge as a result of these technologies.

In addition, the bill includes multiple provisions related to the 5G wireless competition--a competition that the United States and its allies and partners cannot afford to lose as 5G becomes the foundation for the next set of world-changing technological advances that will power the global economy. Driverless cars, the internet of things, advanced manufacturing, smart cities, and telemedicine are just a sample of what will depend on high-speed, high-capacity, and low- latency wireless networks. We must have a national and indeed international strategy to secure these networks and electronics supply chains, and this bill sets out the role the Defense Department should play in that effort.

This year's bill also encourages the Department to continue its engagement with the university community, whose work and basic research generate the innovations that drive our economic growth and bolster our national security. We must promote U.S. university research in both the Defense Department and civilian agencies, protect the innovations that result from that work, and set up mechanisms to welcome the best and brightest technical minds to stay in our Nation after their academic studies in order to benefit from their contributions in these important fields, which have ramifications for our economy and our national security.

I am turning now to some other areas.

This bill supports the Army of today, as well as ensures that our soldiers are well prepared for the challenges of tomorrow. The bill also authorizes funds for critical legacy platforms that the Army must rely upon until new systems are fielded in the future, including upgrades to the M1 Abrams tank and Stryker platform. The bill supports many Army modernization objectives, including long-range precision fires, next-generation combat vehicles, and the Army's Future Vertical Lift Program. The bill also seeks to fill some capability gaps in the Army by authorizing additional funding for hypersonic weapons development and increased investments in Army artillery systems.

In the area of ship construction, the bill approves the continued construction of two Virginia-class submarines in fiscal year 2020 and authorizes advance procurement for a third boat in fiscal year 2023. The bill also authorizes an additional $522 million to make sure that both attack submarines planned in fiscal year 2020 are built with the Virginia Payload Module.

Regarding other Navy ship construction programs, the bill ensures responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars. It expands the cost cap for the Ford-class aircraft carrier program to cover the recently signed contract for a two-carrier buy. This language will ensure that the Navy and the contractor actually deliver on the cost savings promised when the two-ship deal was signed. The bill also tightens the cost cap on the Ford-class carriers since the design for the Ford-class should be stable for the carriers built after the lead ship, the USS Gerald R. Ford.

In addition, the bill requires the Secretary of the Navy to designate a senior technical authority for each class of naval vessels. This senior technical authority would be a professional engineer in the Navy Sea Systems Command who could counterbalance the input from the uniformed Navy in pursuing ship acquisition programs.

In the area of strategic systems, the bill continues to support modernization of all three legs of the nuclear triad: the Columbia- class submarine, the B-21 bomber, and the ground-based strategic deterrent. All are major acquisition programs that will take decades to field.

As we move forward, bipartisan support for these programs will remain essential. If we are to maintain a sea-based deterrent, we must begin to replace our current fleet of 14 Ohio-class submarines in 2027. The bill provides funds for advance procurement for the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine program and authorizes an additional $125 billion to expand the capabilities of the second- and third-tier contractors in the submarine industrial base. Ensuring that these second- and third-tier contractors are ready to expand their production will be important, indeed critical to keep the Columbia-class program on track.

Turning to the air leg of the triad, the B-52 bomber was fielded in 1962. While its longevity is impressive, we need to bring its replacement, the B-21, online, we hope, in the 2030s. The bill also continues to support the replacement for the cruise missile, which is our principal stand-off weapon for the B-52 and an important signaling hedge under the New START treaty.

Turning to the administration's proposal for a Space Force, I would like to briefly highlight what this bill includes.

In reviewing the administration's proposal, the committee held numerous briefings on the importance of space to national security and the protection of our space assets. The committee developed a bipartisan proposal for a Space Force that minimizes the overhead costs by keeping the Space Force within the Air Force since this force will be comprised of about 15,000 Active-Duty members who are almost exclusively Air Force personnel. I believe this was a reasonable and cost-effective approach to stand up the Space Force during its first few years.

I do have concerns about two provisions added during the markup process, one which makes the Space Force chief a member of the Joint Chiefs and a second provision that requires the Space Force chief to report directly to the Secretary of the Air Force. This latter provision will require an additional staff of up to 2,000 people, with an annual cost of somewhere between $200 million to $500 million. I am hopeful that we can address these issues during conference to find the best way forward to ensure our Nation is adequately organized and focused on the space mission.

Turning to countering the continued threat posed by ISIS and other violent extremist groups, the bill extends the Iraq and Syria train- and-equip programs at the requested funding level, while ensuring appropriate congressional oversight of the use of such funds. Additionally, the bill begins to normalize security assistance to Iraq by transitioning funding to enduring authorities.

The bill also includes important authorities to enable more effective information operations by the Department of Defense to counter influence activities by violent extremist groups and near-peer strategic competitors.

In the area of special operations, the bill extends and strengthens various authorities utilized by our special operations forces and empowers the Assistant Secretary for Special Operations and Low- Intensity Conflict to provide advocacy and oversight of special operations forces.

In addition, the bill ensures adequate congressional oversight of the activities conducted by the U.S. military, including special operations forces, by ensuring appropriate access to policy and other documents that authorize operations overseas.

Having recently returned from Afghanistan, I am pleased the bill authorizes the administration's full request for funds to support the ongoing U.S. military efforts as part of Operation Freedom's Sentinel and Operation Resolute Support in Afghanistan and includes a new reporting requirement to enhance oversight of the ongoing advisory mission there.

The bill contains a number of provisions to build capabilities for our strategic competition with Russia. This includes authorizing full funding of the budget request for the European Deterrence Initiative, or the EDI, to support the U.S. military presence in Europe, enhance multilateral training and exercises, and build partner capacity.

The bill also authorizes an increase in funding for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, for a total of $300 million, of which $100 million is available only for lethal assistance. This sends an important signal to Russia that its aggression against Ukraine, including its attack on Ukrainian naval vessels in the Kerch Strait, has consequences. The bill also renews an authority to provide security assistance to the Baltic countries for a joint procurement program.

With regard to Turkey, the committee worked closely with Senators Lankford, Shaheen, Van Hollen, and Tillis to include a provision that prohibits the transfer of the F-35 aircraft to Turkey, which can only be waived if the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, can certify to Congress that Turkey has not accepted delivery of the Russian S-400 air defense system and has provided reliable assurances that it will not do so in the future. This sends a strong message to President Erdogan that he will not have both the Russian S-400 and the F-35 co-located on Turkish soil.

The bill also includes provisions that prioritize defense investments to deter Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific region, including adding Pacific Island nations to the Indo-Pacific Maritime Security Initiative and supporting a multi-domain task force to develop capabilities and operational concepts to improve our posture in the region.

To conclude, this bill authorizes $665.7 billion in base funding, which is roughly $90 billion above the Budget Control Act, or BCA, caps. I want to applaud the chairman's decision to move about $98 billion of funding the President requested for base requirements in OCO back into the base budget where it belongs.

The Department needs additional resources, particularly to restore readiness, to invest in emerging technologies, and to address unforeseen situations, such as hurricane damage, but as it stands now, this bill, if fully funded, would trigger sequestration. Until Congress either repeals the BCA or reaches a new budget agreement, the extra $90 billion is aspirational, but not real money. I think we are creating difficulties for ourselves and the Department if suddenly this funding must be stripped out.

Of all the issues we are considering in Congress, the budget situation is, to my mind, the most critical and urgent one, and I hope my colleagues are as eager as I am to address this issue.

Again, let me commend Chairman Inhofe for his efforts in getting us to this point. Let me also thank our staffs, who did a superb job and continue to do a superb job. Let me thank my colleagues on the committee, including the Presiding Officer, for their thoughtful, creative, responsible, and very hard work in getting this bill done.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you and to an open debate on the floor, voting on the bill, and getting this legislation passed and moving forward.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that Jeremy Maginot, a Coast Guard fellow in my office, be granted privileges of the floor for the remainder of this Congress.

I also ask unanimous consent that another fellow in my office, Aminata Sy, be granted privileges of the floor until August 2, 2019.