Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

After the announcement that was made this morning--it was a great announcement, long awaited--I think it is appropriate that we talk a little bit about it. When Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement and pulled back from the Clean Power Plan, we heard from the environmental extremists and the liberals declaring that the administration's actions will ``endanger public health, our environment and our economic prosperity.'' That was Governors Brown and Cuomo. They further declared that ``if we don't decarbonize our future, people are going to die.'' People are always going to die. That is what the extremists always say. I guess there must be a population out there that actually believes that.

However, the opposite is happening even without a one-sided international agreement or the punishing Clean Power Plan. In effect, in 2017, the United States led the world in CO2 reductions, while China and India led the world in increasing CO2 emissions. How many people know that? All you ever hear about is that we are the guilty one in terms of our emissions. That is not true at all. Just think, both China and India led the world in increasing CO2 emissions. These are the guys our previous President, Barack Obama, would have us believe were actually making great sacrifices, and here they are leading in increasing CO2 emissions.

When we passed tax reform, the Democrats claimed we would experience ``Armageddon''--Nancy Pelosi said that--and taxes on middle-class families would increase. As we have seen, tax reform has been a resounding success, with 4 percent unemployment and nearly 4.1 percent GDP growth in the last quarter.

Right after Congresswoman Pelosi made the statement that taxes would increase on all middle-class families, the Washington Post fact-checked the Democratic claims, giving them four Pinocchios, as 80 percent of middle-class families are paying less in taxes. In other words, 80 percent of middle-class families are paying less in taxes now than they were. Yet she was saying that taxes on all middle-class families were going to have to increase.

You hear these things--they can't look at success and see what is happening and really appreciate it without rousing everyone on the other side with extreme accusations. With every Executive order and Congressional Review Act resolution that rolled back regulation after burdensome regulation, we heard that the end of days was coming.

Let's pause here for a minute and see how you get rid of some of these regulations. There are two ways of getting rid of regulations. One is you do it with an Executive order. Sometimes that doesn't work. You can't use an Executive order in certain types of regulation, so you have to go with the Congressional Review Act.

It is kind of interesting because we started the Congressional Review Act over 20 years ago. Prior to this administration, it had been used successfully only once in 20 years; now it happens almost every day.

With every Executive order and Congressional Review Act resolution rolling back the regulations, we heard that the end of the world was coming. You would not know it if you looked at the economy and saw what is happening in this country today with the increases in energy production, manufacturing, consumer confidence, GDP, and job opportunities.

Meanwhile, jobless claims have dropped to a 45-year low--a 45-year low of jobless claims this year--and the Social Security disability claims last year were the lowest we have seen since 2002.

I think it is kind of interesting to go back and look at the fact that we have 4 percent unemployment. For as long as I can remember, I have always considered 4 percent unemployment full employment. There are always going to be some unemployables, but 4 percent is considered to be full employment, and that is what we have.

It is kind of interesting. I was in Texas last week, talking to one of my liberal friends down there. I said: What can you say now? Look at the economy. The economy has never been better.

He said: No, the economy is bad. It is hard to find anyone to work in restaurants anymore.

In other words, we have full employment, but that is supposed to be bad. That is the position we are in right now.

In the last quarter, we had 4.1 percent growth in the economy. Let's stop and think about that. This is something that no one disagrees with. For every 1 percent growth in economic activity, that translates into $2.9 trillion of new income coming into the Federal Government every 10 years.

Let's stop and think about it. We have a President who is trying to undo the damage from the last administration when the military was cut down to the bone and we didn't do anything in the way of infrastructure. This President is committed to that.

People are saying: All right, where is the money going to come from?

There is where it is going to come from. My gosh, if we can average just 3 percent growth--and we have been doing that; we are far exceeding that--that is going to be close to $6 trillion of new funding that will be there for the next administration.

With each action the President takes, we hear that the consequences are going to be dire and that people will die. It is always that people will die. Yet those predictions have never materialized. We have seen the opposite happen.

When it comes to President Trump's pick to replace Justice Kennedy on the Supreme Court, the predictions are just as hysterical. If there is not any logical reason to be against something, they just start name- calling. That is what has been happening.

In a recent speech, Hillary Clinton worried that with the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Republicans ``want to turn the clock back . . . to the 1850s.'' That came from Hillary Clinton. Her meaning was very clear. She wants people to believe that Judge Kavanaugh and the Republicans are taking the country back to the days of slavery, despite no evidence to back up this reckless claim. In fact, Republicans want more freedom, not less.

Others are equally as bold in their predictions in saying that his confirmation will be the death--listen to this--the death of millions, that his confirmation will be the destruction of the Constitution, and that his confirmation will usher in the end of civil rights in America and make us complicit in evil. In other words, it will be the death of millions of Americans. Who, logically, can even look at that without smiling and saying that they have to be totally desperate in the accusations they are making against this guy? All of these baseless and extreme attacks on his nomination mean just one thing--that Judge Kavanaugh is an excellent pick for the Supreme Court.

After meeting with him last week, looking into his record, and reading about his character--some of the stories that I have heard from other people--it is clear that he is a solid choice to become our newest Supreme Court Justice. With 12 years on the DC Court of Appeals, Judge Kavanaugh has amassed a record of over 300 opinions, and the worst opposition research we have seen against him so far is that he charged baseball tickets to his credit card and then paid for them.

By all accounts, from those who know him, Judge Kavanaugh is a respected member of his community and of his profession. Professionally, he is known as a serious jurist who studies the law and is evenhanded in applying the law.

In his op-ed for the New York Times, entitled ``A Liberal's Case for Brett Kavanaugh,'' Yale Law professor Akhil Reed Amar made this statement: ``Good appellate judges faithfully follow the Supreme Court; great ones influence and help steer it.'' He was referring to Judge Kavanaugh. By this measure, Judge Kavanaugh has been a great appellate judge.

He ranks second among the current judges who have law clerks who have gone on to clerk for the U.S. Supreme Court. More impressively, the Supreme Court has agreed with the positions that Judge Kavanaugh took in the last 13 of his opinions, adopting his logic in the prevailing opinion before the Court. In other words, they came down on his side in the cases that he had decided in the last 13 of his opinions. Nine of those times, the Supreme Court adopted his dissenting opinion as their majority opinion. In fact, he has been reversed by the Supreme Court only once and only in part.

Of those dissenting opinions by Judge Kavanaugh that the Supreme Court adopted as their own, one of them includes his dissent in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, in which he concluded that the EPA defined ``air pollution'' too broadly in its regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. He viewed the Obama EPA's burdensome greenhouse gas regulations for powerplants as exceeding its authority and argued that the courts should ``not lightly conclude that Congress intended'' to ``impose the enormous costs on tens of thousands of American businesses, with corresponding effects on American jobs and workers.'' Again, the Supreme Court agreed with him. They were on his side.

This opinion is also instructive to see his thinking on the proper role of the courts in our system of government. In his opinion, he wrote: ``As a court, it is not our job to make the policy choices and set the statutory boundaries, but it is emphatically our job to carefully but firmly enforce the statutory boundaries.'' This is a consistent part of his jurisprudence.

Because of his position on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Kavanaugh has had many opportunities to check the Federal Government's overreach. I served as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee for quite a number of years, and one of the big problems we had at that time was that the bureaucrats were actually making the determinations. This is where he has actually overruled the bureaucracy many times. In fact, he has overruled Federal agency actions 75 times in his 12 years on the bench. That is really saying something.

When the EPA wanted to impose massive emissions regulations but did not want to consider the costs, Judge Kavanaugh rejected that effort in White Stallion Energy Center v. EPA. The Supreme Court agreed.

In the case of EME Homer City Generation v. EPA, Judge Kavanaugh held that the Obama EPA's cross-state air pollution rule was awful and imposed excessive regulatory burdens on the States.

He also rejected the Department of the Interior's position to designate 143 acres of plaintiff's property as critical habitat for a shrimp based ``on a single 2001 sighting of four ant-sized San Diego fairy shrimp'' on the property. They would shut that down. He reversed it.

These are just a few examples of Judge Kavanaugh's efforts to ensure that our agencies are acting and regulating within their authorizing statutes and the U.S. Constitution.

This is the real reason we are seeing such vitriol from the left. They have long used our courts and our agencies to impose their unpopular agenda, mostly because they couldn't get it through Congress, as the majority of Americans recognized how stifling and burdensome their agenda is.

Having another judge on the Supreme Court who recognizes the proper role of the courts and the agencies when it comes to setting policy that affects all Americans threatens their ability to force costly, ineffective, unpopular burdens on our economy, our job producers, and our landowners. With Judge Kavanaugh on the court, we will preserve the U.S. Constitution and our system of representative government for decades to come.

As I told Brett in our meeting--he has been good enough to go around and have meetings with all of the Members of the Senate. As a matter of fact, I told him that, from his reputation, he didn't need to waste his time with me because I knew all about him, and I was going to support him. As I told him during that meeting, though, his nomination and the work President Trump and the Senate have done to process judicial nominations are to save our country, not for me but for my 20 kids and grandkids.

So I look forward to the confirmation. We are going to hear more of the accusations, more of the extreme left making comments about this great judicial success. I look forward to having him there for many years to come. I am convinced that it is going to happen.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, it is my honor to pay tribute today to two exceptional Oklahomans and patriots, retired Army Chief Warrant Officer Michael ``Tony'' Dunne of Webber Falls, OK, and retired Army Chief Warrant Officer Brandon ``Ray'' Seabolt of Skiatook, OK. On August 14, 2018, both were awarded the Office of the Secretary of Defense Medal for Valor, the highest civilian award presented by the Department of Defense.

On August 7, 2015, Tony was working at Camp Integrity, just north of Kabul, Afghanistan, executing duties as contractors for the Department of Defense when a potent vehicle-borne improvised explosive device impaled the main gate and knocked down a guard tower. Without hesitation, Tony rushed to the fight and evacuated a wounded servicemember from the scene, undoubtedly saving their life. From his actions that day and others, Tony has been honored for exceptional gallantry in repeatedly putting himself in harm's way to assist in countering multiple insurgent threats, helping to save lives at the risk of his own.

On December 17, 2015, Ray was serving as a counter-IED expert in congruence with U.S. Special Forces and Afghan partners when they were ambushed by enemy fire. Without regard for his own life, Ray jumped to action and single-handedly fended off the insurgent onslaught, allowing the recovery force to approach the scene with little resistance. Ray has deservedly been recognized for his bravery and confidence in supporting multiple engagements with the enemy with devastating effects and for providing tactical advice and assistance in the successful recovery of servicemembers.

Oklahoma is truly honored and proud to claim Tony and Ray, two patriots that exemplify the ultimate in bravery and courage in support of our country's most critical national security missions both at home and overseas.

Created in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the Medal for Valor recognizes government employees and private citizens who perform an act of heroism or sacrifice, with voluntary risk to their personal safety in the face of danger. Tony and Ray's well-deserved medals, along with one other awarded on August 14, bring the total number of Medals for Valor to 17 awarded since September 11, 2001. This exemplifies the recognition of immense sacrifice that this small group has made for our Nation. Now, Tony and Ray's names will permanently reside in the Pentagon's Hall of Heroes, distinguished among our Nation's best.

Madam President, yesterday I had an opportunity to go through and thank all of the appropriate people.

This is arguably the most significant bill that we will have this year--as we have had every year. This is the 58th consecutive year we had a Defense authorization bill. This is dedicated and named after Senator McCain. It is the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act. We are very proud of the input we had from his staff and from him, and we went through it in record time.

I certainly thank my counterpart, Senator Reed. He and I have worked very closely together for many years.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, let me just follow up on the remarks of my friend from Iowa.

I think most of us around this Chamber had a chance to meet Judge Kavanaugh. I am in kind of a unique situation in that I am not a lawyer. So I ask different questions than most people do, but I was already convinced, judging from his history in voting and his adherence and commitment to the Constitution, that he is my kind of guy. In fact, I even sent a message to him saying: Don't bother wasting your time on me because you don't need to. But, nonetheless, he came.

This is what is interesting about this guy. Everything that the Senator from Iowa said is true, but over and above that, I have had personal conversations with people who were from his home church. There was one lady who was a close friend of Judge Kavanaugh whose husband died, and every time there is an event, such as a parent-student event, Judge Kavanaugh would go and get the children of his deceased friend and take them to the events as if he were their father. It is not very often that we see that kind of compassion in somebody. So we had a conversation about those things and I was very excited about it.

National Defense Authorization Bill

Mr. President, on Thursday we are going to be passing a bill that I consider every year to be the most significant bill of the year. We know it is going to pass because it has passed every year for the last 57 years. It is going to pass. It is named the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act, and I am pleased that this conference report is the result of an open and bipartisan process.

I have to thank, first of all, Chairman McCain and his staff for working so diligently in leading the legislation that bears his name. This year's NDAA is a fitting testament to him. We are talking about John McCain's policies and his priorities and the lasting legacy on our Nation. John is a true American hero. So it is appropriate that we name this bill after him.

I also want to thank Ranking Member Reed. Senator Reed has been by my side. The two of us have worked this Defense authorization bill now for several months, and we have been very busy doing that. We have been working closely with Chairman Thornberry over in the House, as well as with Ranking Member Smith in the House. I thank them for their hard work on this bill.

It always gets around to the big four, after we all meet and we have the meetings with the House and the Senate, our joint conference meetings. But then there are always some things that need to be done, and they have to be done by the big four. I have been involved with several of these, and this year, of course, the chairman of the House committee, the acting chairman of the Senate committee, and the ranking members worked very hard, and we got this done.

So we should all be proud of this week's National Defense Authorization Act, but we shouldn't lose sight of why it is so important. We need to remember the degraded state of our military.

I don't mean this in a partisan way, but we had 8 years of the Obama administration, and one thing that I have always appreciated about previously Senator Obama and then-President Obama is that he is a real, sincere, in-the-heart liberal. Quite often, the priorities of those individuals are not the same as some of us, particularly in a strong national defense. So we are really hurting.

At the end of the Obama administration, in 2016, only 33 percent of our brigade combat teams were at sufficient levels to be deployed; only a quarter of our aviation brigades were ready; and just 40 percent of the Marines' F-18s were flyable--only 40 percent--because the first thing somebody does when they are cutting down on the expense of a strong military is they do away with the maintenance, and that is the problem we had. We were short 1,500 pilots and had shrunk the force by nearly 100,000 servicemembers despite growing threats around the world.

I don't think anyone can argue that this is a threatened world. I think it is the most threatened our country has ever been. Countries around the world have the capability of firing a rocket and hitting a city in America. That didn't used to be the case. You had to be a giant in order to be one of the leaders. Now we have people out there whose judgment we have to question, and they have this capability. So we have a lot of things.

We have fallen behind China and Russia. This year's national defense strategy--the first in a decade--rightfully recognized that China and Russia are strategic adversaries and competitors.

We are also falling behind especially in technologies that will define the future of deterrence and capabilities.

Look at hypersonic weapons. Hypersonic weapons operate at five times the speed of sound. They are still in the experimental stage. We are working on it, but we are behind China and Russia. They are both ahead of us at this time.

The nuclear triad is a modernization program. Over the 8 Obama years, we didn't do anything in that. Consequently, during those years, both China and Russia passed us up.

Long-range artillery. Artillery is measured by the rapid fire and by the range, and right now, in both cases of rapid fire and range, China and Russia are ahead of us.

The national defense strategy identified these vulnerabilities, but it is our responsibility to take that strategy and turn it into policy, and that is exactly what we are doing. This year's NDAA does that. We are investing in training, maintenance, and modernization, restoring our qualitative and quantitative advantage around the world. I say restoring, not achieving, because we lost it. The Chairman of our Joint Chiefs of Staff, in the fifth year of the Obama administration, said that we are losing our qualitative and quantitative advantage around the world. It is kind of hard for people to conceive of this. I am used to the fact that most people believed and probably still believe today that the United States has the very best of everything. Well, we have the best troops and the best-trained troops, but our equipment is not all that good, and so we are doing everything to try to change that.

So that is the situation in which we find ourselves. This year's NDAA will fully fund the key priorities we have identified that will ensure that our Armed Forces have the training, resources, and equipment they need to complete their mission. We fully fund what is needed to modernize the force, including procurement for aircraft, shipbuilding, and artillery.

Procurement has always been a problem. It has been a problem since I was serving in the House on the House Armed Services Committee. We are addressing this problem as it has not been addressed before.

We have now fully funded in this bill the modernization of our Nation's nuclear strategy, including the development of low-yield nuclear weapons and a layered missile defense. A lot of people don't realize that Russia had low-yield nuclear weapons and we didn't. So we are trying to catch up in those areas.

We fully funded support for critical allies and partners, including the Afghanistan security forces, coalition support, Iraqi security forces, and Israel.

We have increased end strength to align with the President's budget request and adapt to the growing threats from around the world. Now, this sounds easy, but it is not because we are starting from behind. The NDAA bill we are going to vote on on Thursday goes beyond the President's request to provide greater funding for research and development, ensuring that we can continue to focus on new and emerging threats, like hypersonics, space, and cyber.

We are standing up to China by strengthening our position across the Pacific region. This bill provides support to our allies who stand up against China's military and economic coercion and procures deployable airbase systems to enhance credible combat power.

The NDAA also calls out China for illegally creating and fortifying islands in the South China Sea. I was in the South China Sea about a month ago. Our allies are looking at us and looking at China, and wondering, whose side do we want to be on? Because all they see is what is happening in China. Those are illegal islands. They don't own the land under them. There are some seven different islands exceeding 3,000 acres that are as if they are preparing for World War III. So we know what their capability is. We know what the problems are.

Then, of course, the NDAA counters Russia's growing aggression and influence across Eastern Europe by directing a study on permanently stationing U.S. forces in Poland and conducting a study on Russia's malign influence around the world. That is in this bill. So we are actually going to take some action.

It wasn't long ago--I think in March--that the RAND Corporation, which makes assessments as to what our capabilities are, said that Russia is to the point right now that if they were to take on NATO, including our forces in NATO and Western Europe, that they would win. That is a pretty frightening thought.

The bill continues limitations on U.S.-Russia military cooperation and provides defensive lethal aid to Ukraine. I happened to be in Ukraine with President Poroshenko way back when they had their Parliamentary elections. I think it was about 4 years ago. That was the first time they had a Parliamentary election where there was not one Communist in the Ukraine Parliament. He was very, very proud. Of course that upset Russia, and Putin started sending people into Ukraine and killing them, and our President at that time, President Obama, would not allow us to send defensive weapons in there to help them.

It keeps faith with our troops by providing a 2.6-percent military pay increase--the first one in about 10 years--and it is modernizing the officer personnel system and supporting our troops and military families.

When Senator Reed and I started on this process, we shared a commitment to making sure that this year's NDAA is more than just another piece of legislation; rather, that it is a message to each and every one of our servicemembers. And we did that. The NDAA tells them that they are our top priority. It is what we have to do to defend America. After all, the No. 1 thing we should be doing around here is defending America. A lot of people have forgotten that there is an old document around that nobody reads anymore called the Constitution. The Constitution says what we are supposed to be doing: defending America. I am proud to say that we did. Every soldier, sailor, airman, and marine can look at this legislation and know they have the support and commitment of their country.

I want to speak for a minute about the historical significance of this legislation because the history of the National Defense Authorization Act is a distinguished one.

As I mentioned before, we have passed this for 57 consecutive years. This is the 58th year. But what is unique is the fact that we are passing the legislation this week--a record for how quickly in the year it will be passed and signed into law. This was deliberate. We are moving quickly, but we are thorough, considering hundreds of bipartisan amendments in both committee markup and on the floor. This will be the earliest an NDAA has passed since 1996 when we were considering the legislation for fiscal year 1997. So it is the result of the legislative process working.

We set a budget in February and are authorizing the funding well in advance of next year's fiscal year. So now we can and should turn our attention to passing the necessary appropriations bill on time that aligns with that which we are authorizing today.

About 5 years ago, we were all the way to December before we passed this bill. To remind you, if we don't get it done by the end of December, it means we are not going to get flight pay and hazard pay to our troops who are standing in harm's way. So we have done a good job on this. I am anxious to get this out of the way and vote it into law, which is going to take place on Thursday.

We have to remember that without consistent, continued funding, the critical reforms in this year's NDAA will not be possible, and we won't be able to make the needed investments to restore our competitive advantage over China and Russia. That is exactly what we are going to do--we are going to restore what we have lost, and it is all happening in this bill. I think we will have the chance on Thursday to vote for what I consider to be the most significant legislation each year.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

First of all, Mr. President, we are about to go to conference. The first three votes here are very, very significant. They are considered to be maybe the most consequential votes of the year.

We have been working closely with the President on our John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act. It is going to be a reality. We have done this through regular order in a very effective way. The Senate Armed Services Committee has been in concert with our combatant commanders, with Secretary Mattis, with the service chiefs, with the President. We have had a markup, our committee markup. We actually had over 300 amendments.

I am disturbed that we can't change this policy we have had for a long period of time that says that if one person on the floor objects when we are considering a bill--the NDAA, which we have considered successfully for 57 years--we are not going to be able to consider amendments. That is something we may want to address. To overcome that, we adopted 47 bipartisan amendments, both through the managers' package and the votes on the floor.

Tomorrow, we are going to hold our first big meeting of the conferees. I have been through a number of these in the past. This is where Members of the House and the Senate meet each other, talk about their issues, and talk about their successes and what they want to accomplish in this conference report. I have already visited with Ranking Member Senator Reed, Chairman Thornberry, and Ranking Member Smith, and we have a commitment to finish this conference report by the end of July. It is very ambitious. It is something we will be able to do.

The second vote we are going to have is to instruct the conferees in terms of the CFIUS issue. Personally, having recently been to China and the South China Sea, seeing what they are doing right now in northern Africa, in Djibouti--we have a different China than we had before. We are going to have to thoroughly review foreign transactions for national security concerns. I think Senator Cornyn is on the right track. I fully support his amendment.

The last one we will have is from Senator Reed, and I think this is significant too. Our President has said several times--I have to say this. Not one President in my memory, Democratic or Republican, has been successful in getting our allies and NATO to carry their share of the burden. This President is getting very tough on that. I think the Reed motion to instruct conferees on NATO is one that will give him a lot of the force that he needs to impact these other countries.

If you take 29 countries--67 percent of our actual budget for our country is the entire amount for 29 countries. That isn't right. This is something we can change, and we will hopefully succeed in doing that during this conference we will have.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Just for one comment.

Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, for the effort he has put forth on a very difficult issue. I wholeheartedly agree with him.

I must say that this morning I received a phone call from Secretary Mattis, who strongly supports this and says we really need to have this.

Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Rhode Island.

I would like to say that there are 29 members of NATO. Of the 29 countries, if you take all of their defense budgets and add them together, the United States' defense dollars equal about 67 percent of that.

I believe this is sending the right message to let them know that we appreciate them--that is, our partners in NATO--but also that our President has made a very strong pitch that each one of them come up with 2 percent for their commitment, and they have not done it. I think the President needs to have our support. I think this does add legitimacy to that request.

I believe that burden-sharing has always been a problem. We have never been able to do it under Republican or Democrat Presidents, and this, maybe, is the time that we can get it done.

I support this motion.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Nathan Dills, the first Oklahoman to be sworn in as president of the Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors' National Association, SMACNA. With over 3,000 company members, SMACNA is a leader in promoting quality and excellence in the sheet metal and air conditioning industry.

Nathan decided to go into the family sheet metal business in 2006. The passion for sheet metal operations goes back three generations in Nathan's family. His grandfather, O.C. Patten, was a sheet metal worker, and his father started the family's sheet metal business in 1977. Nathan now owns and operates the family companies in Oklahoma City.

Not only was Nathan's father, Harold, on the SMACNA board of directors, be he was also a member of the college of fellows, a prestigious group within the SMACNA community. While a part of SMACNA, he won the two highest awards given by the organization. Before Harold passed away in 2016, Nathan was elected to the board, making his father and the rest of his family extremely proud.

I am most impressed by Nathan's devotion to his faith and his family. He has been married to his wife, Shannon, for 19 years. Nathan has two stepchildren, Hayley and Jordan, one daughter, Olivia, and one grandchild, Zaidan. With 20 kids and grandkids myself, I can attest to the true joy faith and family bring to one's life.

I want to congratulate Nathan Dills on this well-deserved position and wish him well in his new role as SMACNA president.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, reserving the right to object.

Let me just mention that we have a list of about 40 amendments that have gone through the process and have been cleared on both sides. These four were not among those.

I am still holding out hope to be able to get not just those but also a managers' amendment. However, that had to be something that has gone through the process, and these have not. So I do respectfully object.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the motion to waive the budget act with respect to the Sanders' point of order occur at 5:30 p.m. today.

Mr. President, first of all, let me just agree with the comments that were made by Senator Reed. He has been great to work with. I am glad he mentioned all the help of his staff. People don't realize how, on a bill this size--this is the largest bill we will consider probably this year--how much staff is involved. It is both Republican and Democratic staff. It is one of the few things we do around here that really isn't partisan. I think the Senator from Rhode Island and I were only apart from each other on maybe 10 or 11 amendments. By the way, on amendments, I do want to comment how many amendments we took care of during the committee hearing. So we have had a lot of activity on the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for 2019.

Throughout the last 2 weeks, we have debated this legislation on the Senate floor in an open process. We have said over and over, we want to have open amendments, and we want to have people bring amendments down. We have a system that is probably not going to be changed, but there is going to be some activity this next year by several of us, if we are going to be involved in next year's authorization bill for the year 2020, to see if we can't address a major problem; that is, we have allowed a system to take place where 1 person can stop 99 people from having an amendment. That is wrong.

In January, President Trump and Secretary Mattis announced the new national defense strategy that rightfully identified that we are returning to a world of great power and competition when dominated by the capabilities relative to China and Russia. We talked about that, the power they have. We have talked about an article that was written just recently that said that if we got into a fight of Russia versus NATO, most likely NATO would lose to Russia. We have watched China in the South China Sea putting together islands where it is almost as if they are preparing for World War III. I was there in the South China Sea, and our people made it very clear--and I am talking about allies of ours--that they are not sure which would win. We have China out there illegally building islands and putting us in a position where we don't really know what their intentions are. All we know is, everything on those islands--we are talking about over 3,000 now--that they are put in a position where they are preparing for a world war.

It is not like it used to be. Now we are in a situation where a country can have a rocket that can hit an American city. So times have changed. We need to be prepared to respond to threats of terrorism from rogue states, like Iran and North Korea. The National Defense Strategy is clear. We need to make strategic investments now in the areas where we are falling behind--and we are behind.

Since the release of the National Defense Strategy, I have traveled to visit our allies in both Eastern Europe and Asia. They all understand the threat of growing aggression from China and Russia. I have spoken with our commanders in the field, our military leaders, and our troops in the mess halls in Afghanistan and all around the world. Perhaps most importantly, you can really get more from them than you can from a hearing here in Washington.

The Senate Armed Services Committee was tasked with implementing the national defense strategy. The result is the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act. We made tough choices about where and how to invest our resources, but I am pleased with the work we have done to restore America as the leader of the free world.

We are making the needed investments in training, maintenance, and modernization. Any time you are starving the military, those are the three areas you see first--maintenance and modernization and, of course, that also means training. We are in the process of doing this, and that is what this bill is all about. We are changing this. We have addressed that by catching up where we were falling behind--artillery, hypersonics, the nuclear triad.

Most people in the real world assume that America has the best system of anybody else. Their systems--plural--are better.

Artillery, for example, is measured by rapid fire and range. In terms of rapid fire and range, both Russia and China are better than we are. Hypersonics is a new system, a weapon five times the speed of sound. It is still under development. We are working on it. However, we are behind both China and Russia. They are ahead of us in this training. In the nuclear triad, we haven't done anything in the last 10 years, while both China and Russia are actually ahead of us. It is not like it used to be, where we did have the very best of everything.

So we are standing up to China by strengthening our position across the Pacific region. This bill provides support to our allies who stand up against China's military and economic coercion and procures deployable airbase systems to enhance credible combat power.

The NDAA also calls out China for illegally creating fortified islands in the South China Sea for military purposes. That is what they are for. Nothing is on there, except preparing for some military activity. The NDAA modernizes the Committee on Foreign Investment to address national security concerns and to stop China from trying to

steal sensitive technology from the United States companies.

The NDAA counters Russia's growing aggression and influence across Eastern Europe by directing a study on permanently stationing U.S. forces in Poland and conducting a study on Russia's maligned influence around the world. It continues limitations on U.S.-Russia military cooperation, provides defensive lethal aid to Ukraine, and allows the U.S. Cyber Command to respond to Russia's continued cyber attacks.

It keeps faith with our troops by providing a 2.6-percent military pay raise, the highest in nearly 10 years, modernizing the officer personnel system, and supporting our troops and military families.

There is no doubt in my mind that this bill will make American families safer and will stand up for our democratic values around the world.

I thank my partner in this, the Democratic leader of the committee. He talked about the staff that we have been working with and complimented them--John McCain's committee staff: Chris Brose, Samantha Clark, Rachel Hoff, Mark Montgomery, Erik Swabb, James Hickey, Diem Salmon, Greg Lilly, Adam Barker, Augusta Binns-Berkey, Lauren Davis, Allen Edwards, Jackie Kerber, Matt Lampert, Allison Lazarus, John Lehman, Daniel Lerner, Sean O'Keefe, Brad Patout, Jason Potter, Will Quinn, Dustin Walker, Gwyneth Woolwine, Leah Brewer, Gabriel Noronha, Nick Hatcher, Katie Magnus, Lindsay Markle, Cara Mumford, Madison Sparber, and Arthur Tellis; from our staff: Luke Holland, Tony Pankuch, Leacy Burke, Adrienne Jackson, Chris Ryan, and Laurie Fitch; and the floor staff: Laura Dove, Robert Duncan, Chris Tuck, Tony Hanagan, Chloe Barz, Mike Smith, and Katherine Kilroy. They have actually worked long, long hours. On a bill like this, they are out there all night long.

But let me say, as I started, that there is something wrong with a system that will allow one Member of the Senate to preclude 99 Members from getting their amendments through. This is not right. I am not sure how to resolve it, but I would just say--and I think that my good friend from Rhode Island would agree--that we can work out something to keep that from happening or to minimize it.

It is not quite as bad as it sounds, when we say we didn't have any amendments on the floor. We had countless amendments in committee. We had many amendments on the floor. There were 47 amendments that were folded into the bill, and that is after it came to the floor. So we did consider those, but we didn't vote on any amendments, and that is what we should be doing. We stand here and plead with people to bring their amendments down so we can have an open amendment process, and then one person objects. There is something wrong with that system.

So I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee for their continued leadership. I thank my friend from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, for his leadership and commitment to bipartisan collaboration throughout the process. We shared a commitment to open debate and amendments.

Secondly, and most significant, I recognize the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator McCain, for his leadership. Most of the stuff in this bill has come through the deliberation and leadership of Senator McCain. We can clearly see that this bill reflects his priorities and policy initiatives he has fought for as our chairman. His commitment to government oversight and accountability and American leadership around the world is evident on every page. We miss his voice in the Chamber today, but today's vote is a true tribute to his lasting legacy to our Nation, and I urge our colleagues to join me.

We are going to cast two votes. At some point in this process, I am going to make another effort. We have a list of 47 amendments that have been cleared on both sides, and Democrats and Republicans are all for this. We want to have an opportunity to have these passed in a package. I am hopeful that there will not be a Member of this body who will object and object to 47 people having their amendments, which have been cleared, actually pass.

We are getting close to the time when we will be voting. I think there ought to be one last shot--maybe not. This is a very significant vote coming up.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I have a bipartisan list of amendments that have been cleared from both sides. We have been talking about wanting to have these presented, and there is no objection to any of them. So I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the adoption of the substitute amendment, the amendments be called up en bloc. There are 44 amendments. I further ask consent that these amendments be agreed to en bloc and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. I send the list to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Richard J. Schrider, a legislative fellow in the office of Senator Ernst, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 115th Congress.

Mr. President, first, let me make sure we get into the Record as accurately as I am saying right now, to Abe Schumer, that his little boy's most predictable adversary wishes him today a happy birthday.

That was very touching. Thank you very much, I say to my friend, Senator Schumer.

Mr. President, I want to start today by giving an update as to where we are in the process for the NDAA.

At 10:30 a.m., which is coming up shortly, we are going to have a cloture vote on Toomey's amendment that applies the REINS Act to the CFIUS rulemaking process. We all know what that is. We all know there is opposition. If that vote fails, we will immediately roll into a cloture vote on the substitute amendment. That is our amendment, which we will be considering as the bill. Then, we hope to invoke cloture on the underlying bill this afternoon before we head out of town. If we are able to do that, we will have the final passage vote on Monday when we return.

We are also working diligently as we speak to clear an additional managers' package. One of the things we were talking about, and I have been somewhat critical of some of my fellow Members, is the fact that we have been operating under rules--and we have gone through this in years past; it is almost predictable that one individual will try to use this bill as a must-pass bill. Everyone knows it is going to pass; it has passed for the last 57 years. So, logically, it is where you put an amendment that is very difficult to pass. I don't blame them for that. I would do the same thing. Nonetheless, I wouldn't do it if it caused all other amendments to not be considered.

I am hoping we will be able to have a managers' package. I have reason to believe and I am optimistic about that, and it would be a great thing to have. I don't know how many of these amendments would ultimately be in the managers' package, but we are talking about a lot of amendments, and we have already cleared many amendments.

Anyone who criticizes the process that we are going through right now may not be aware of how many amendments we have considered in our work on this in committee. We are talking about some 300 amendments, and since that time, countless amendments have been agreed to on both sides. That is where we are today.

It will be a great victory for all of us in this Chamber if we can get the managers' amendments agreed to, and hopefully that will be true.

I can't neglect that today is the Army's 243rd birthday. I actually attended a birthday party for the U.S. Army quite a while before a lot of you were even born, when I was in Fort Lee, VA, in the U.S. Army. We would have been celebrating the 180th birthday at that time. Back when we were celebrating the 180th birthday, I never dreamed I would be around to celebrate the 243rd birthday of the U.S. Army.

The Army is actually older than this country is. In 1775, brave Americans joined the cause to fight for the life and liberty we hold so dear now. It is the same motivation that still inspires the service of the men and women who join the Army and, indeed, all of the service branches today.

It is for those men and women that we are here today. That is what this is all about--the NDAA that we are considering today. It has provisions for individuals; it has specific provisions for the men and women on the ground in harm's way, including the largest pay raise in 10 years. It means more opportunities for qualified servicemembers to receive promotions throughout their careers. I think it is a recognition that in the time in which this is taking place, there is a new emphasis on defending America.

I don't say this critically, but the last administration had a policy which said that we can't put any more money in sequestration for the military unless we do the same for nondefense spending. A lot of people agreed with that. I don't agree with that.

We are now at the point where we have broken parity, so I say to individuals who are making career decisions: Help is on its way; this is a good time to do it. Part of that is because of the modernization of the personnel system in this legislation.

It also authorizes $40 million for supplemental impact aid support. With an expansion of some military activities, individuals who are involved are exempt from the taxes that support our schools. That is a problem we have. Every State has a problem, but it is probably more severe in Oklahoma than elsewhere. I would like to let individuals in my State of Oklahoma, at five different installations, know that help is on its way, and we are going to try to do a better job with the supplemental impact aid than we have done in the past.

This bill increases funding for the personnel, improving the quality of life for the forces and their families. Most importantly, it increases end strength. It is not as much as I would like to see, but it does grow the force, so servicemembers can have sufficient time to be with their families and train before redeploying.

That is what we are doing right now. It is going to take a lot of additional funding. We are authorizing that funding, and we are going to be rebuilding.

I have to remind people in the outside world who are not here in Washington that we do have a problem. The assumption that America has the best of everything at one time was true, but it is not true. I always document that because it is a pretty strong statement.

Right now, if we look at our artillery in terms of rapid fire and range, both Russia and China have better range and rapid fire than we have in the United States. We know we have done nothing with our nuclear arsenal for the last 10 years. At the same time, our triad system has been static, and Russia and China have improved theirs. They are ahead of us in that area.

There is a new type of defense system that actually has a defense mechanism that goes five times the speed of sound. It is still in the experimental stage, but both China and Russia are ahead of us. The bill we are considering now, ironically on the birthday of the U.S. Army, is going to correct that. It is going to take a little while, but it is ultimately going to correct that.

We have 20 or more minutes before we cast the two very significant votes

that I just mentioned. This is everyone's opportunity to be heard. I am hoping, and I really believe, that individuals who have been somewhat of an obstacle in the past are cooperating at a new level, and I am very excited about that. I hope we will be able to stay on the schedule I just articulated a few minutes ago.

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, we have two votes coming up. The first vote is the one I strongly support. With this amendment, Senator Toomey is looking to do something that has been very successful; that is, to give a little more opportunity for us to oversee some of the overregulations that are out there.

I was very pleased to have the first CRA that was mine, which I authored, to be enacted into law. We have now had 16 CRAs, Congressional Review Act. It is interesting because we went 20 years without having any of them that were taken, and now we have been successful in doing that. It is a stronger position for those of us in the Senate to be able to get some things done. We can safeguard the importance of deregulation, especially for the future, by passing this amendment today.

Senator Toomey's amendment will give congressional oversight over the CFIUS rulemaking process, which I think everyone in here knows needs to be done and will be done. It will not slow down the implementation process and still grants CFIUS the necessary flexibility to enact in the name of national security.

After that, we are going to have the vote that is going to allow us to move to a package, and I am hoping we will be able to do it because there has been a lot of talk about not being able to get an open amendment process. We have not had one, and that is unfortunate. If we can get this package of amendments put together--there are going to be quite a few of them--all of them will be cleared on both sides. It is going to be one that people are going to be very anxious to get done. It is going to give voice to many of the Members, probably some 40 Members who otherwise would not have the opportunity to have their amendment agreed to or at least heard. I think we will have that opportunity. It is very important we do it now. Hopefully, that package of amendments is going to be one that will be favorably approved.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I make a point of order that amendment No. 2366 is not germane.

Mr. President, I make a point of order that amendment No. 2700 is not germane.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2276 on behalf of Senator Boozman.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I call up the Rounds amendment No. 2273 to the underlying bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I object.

Mr. President, I couldn't have said it as well as the Senator from Missouri. This is the John S. McCain reauthorization bill and obviously he is deserving of much more than that.

Amendment No. 2842

Since we are going to have the votes in just a few minutes--two votes--let me make a couple of comments, and then I will yield to the Senator from Rhode Island. I believe the first vote we are going to have is going to be the Reed amendment, and I do oppose it. This amendment would require congressional authorization for the development of nuclear weapons for one simple reason we already require. Congress is already required to authorize the development of nuclear weapons in each year's authorization and appropriations bill.

The debate is not really about the authorization; it is about the ``Nuclear Posture Review.'' The ``Nuclear Posture Review'' calls for the United States to develop a low-yield nuclear capability, which some in Congress are against. That is fine. That is what this vote is on. We should debate it. We have debated it in the past, certainly in our committee we have, and that is the reason it is on the committee and would have to be taken off on the floor, if that is the desire of the majority of Members. That is not my desire. That is what we did.

The Armed Services Committee considered an amendment to limit low- yield authorization, debate its merits, and voted it down by a bipartisan vote of 16 to 11. There is certainly support for it.

Let's be clear. The purpose of developing the low-yield capability is the same as our entire nuclear enterprise--deterrence. According to the NPR, Russia believes we have a gap in our nuclear capability because we have no low-yield nuclear warheads. As a result, they may perceive that limited nuclear first use, including low-yield weapons, would present the United States with two bad choices in response: escalate or do nothing. Since neither response would be acceptable, Russia may see this as an opportunity to gain strategic advantage through the use of nuclear weapons. We must correct this Russian misconception.

Simply put, the NDAA authorizes the development of low-yield capability to make nuclear use less likely, to preserve and enhance deterrence. That is what this is all about. I heard arguments--and we debated this for many hours in the committee, and it is one that I think we ought to have every capability the Russians have, and of course we will not have that unless we have the low-yield capability. I would hate to have our country in a position where the only choice we have is to do nothing or to use the high-yield equipment that we don't want to use.

I will save my remarks on the next amendment, the Lee amendment, until after this so we can give Senator Reed the opportunity to visit about his amendment.

In just a moment, it is my intention to table the Reed amendment. I want to say this. This is the way things should work. We have debated this. We have debated it in committee. I have heard his very logical remarks and positions, and he has heard mine. We have an honest disagreement, and I think this is a better example than some of the things we heard recently from some of our colleagues.

Mr. President, I move to table Reed amendment No. 2842 and ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to table Lee amendment No. 2366 and ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, it is my intent--and I will be doing it-- but I want to give a chance for Senator Paul to be on the floor when I do this.

As we have said over and over again, Senator Reed and I have worked very closely in trying to get these amendments in place. I can remember in

years past, when there were people who objected to any amendments, we ended up without amendments, so we had to pass a bill that didn't have an open amendment process on the floor.

We wanted an open amendment process on the floor. I am talking about ``we'' being the Democrats, Republicans, and the leadership on both sides of the aisle. We have committed to that. We have tried to do that.

Unfortunately, under Senate rules, one Senator can stop and object to moving on an amendment. If that happens and continues, the same thing will happen. I can remember four times in the past when we ended up without any amendments at all because one person objected.

It is our intent to open it up so that people can offer their amendments, vote them down, vote them up--whatever we want to do.

Right now, we have several amendments, and I would like to make a motion to adopt them en bloc. These amendments are amendments that have been cleared on both sides. There are 10 of them. All 10 are germane amendments.

They are Ernst amendment No. 2289, Schatz No. 2441, Bennet No. 2617, Shaheen No. 2686, Heitkamp No. 2695, Lee No. 2723, Hatch No. 2755, Cruz No. 2598, and Tester No. 2818.

These 10 amendments are all germane. They cleared on both sides.

I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be called up en bloc.

Mr. President, I do regret this.

Let me repeat what was just objected to. There are 10 amendments that are cleared on both sides. Democrats are all for them. Republicans are all for them. I suggest the junior Senator from Kentucky is for all these amendments too.

If we don't have these amendments, what amendments will we have? What good does it do to offer an objection to these amendments that are all germane just because he is upset with some senior Senator from another State?

I am thinking now: Where do we go from here? I am going to offer another bloc of votes as soon as we have some that are all germane and agreed to on both sides. When that happens, I am hoping there will not be an objection. I am hoping to break this logjam.

If not, then what is going to happen is that we are going to end up voting for this bill. We know it is going to pass. It has passed for 57 consecutive years. It is going to pass, but it will pass without the amendments of those individuals who have wanted an open amendment process, which I have wanted, which my Democratic colleague has wanted, and we have made that effort for a long period of time.

I am concerned. I think that it could end up that we will have--it is not as if we haven't had amendments. In our committee, we had some 300 amendments that we actually considered. We went through the amendment process. We have had a lot of input from other Members, but again, we are committed to an open amendment process. So far, it looks as if we are not going to get it.

I just ask that whatever is causing my good friend from Kentucky to object to these amendments will be satisfied by some change. If he wants a vote on his amendment, let him go and pursue it. I hate to hold this bill hostage.

I just got back from being with our troops all over the world. I was in CENTCOM, in EUCOM, in AFRICOM, talking to our troops who are over there. They know that their pay raise is in this bill. Their benefits are in there. This is one thing we need to do.

If there is one thing that needs to be done, it is this bill. I think maybe there is something wrong with a system that says: If I can't have my way to get a vote on my amendment, I am going to kill everybody else's amendments. That is what I am afraid may be happening now.

I am hoping my friend from Kentucky will reconsider and allow us to adopt amendments. It has nothing to do with an amendment the Senator from Kentucky has.

Mr. President, I would suggest that the War Powers Act does specifically say that the President has the very power to enter our troops into combat. It shouldn't be necessary to say.

People are asking me questions and calling up and asking: Where are we on the NDAA? I want to make a few comments about that and then give an exact status as to where we are right now.

We said it before, but we can't overstate this: This NDAA bill is going to pass. We know it is going to pass. It has passed for 57 consecutive years, and it is one that has to pass because this is the most important bill of the year.

Last night, we adopted a managers' package of some 45 bipartisan amendments. This is on top of some 300 amendments that we already have gone through in the committee.

I want to say with my counterpart here--Senator Reed--that we are in total agreement on the procedures we should be following. We are in agreement on an open amendment process. Both the Democratic and Republican leadership are committed to an open amendment process. We have been trying to set that up, and we have not been shortchanging or shortcutting anyone's ability to be heard on their amendment, because we have already gone through 300 of these in committee, and then it passed unanimously to the floor. That is something that doesn't happen very often.

I hope that we can have more amendments throughout this process. We are working to get consent to do that. I think we can make it happen. We want an open amendment process. Everybody wants that.

I recently got back from visiting with American troops around the world--Afghanistan, Poland, Kuwait, just to name a few. When I meet with these troops, I go and talk to the enlisted guys in the mess hall. You can find out a lot more by sitting down and eating with the guys in the mess hall in Afghanistan than you can having a hearing in Washington, DC. One of the things I learned last week was that our troops want to know if we are really doing all we can.

The proper authorizations, reports, trainings, things like we established in this bill would be improved by an open amendment process. The open amendment process is the hallmark of our democracy. It is very significant, and it is something we need to be doing, and we are all in agreement on that.

Now, the NDAA is also a message to our allies around the world. They don't want to have to hedge their bets. It wasn't too long ago we were in the South China Sea, and we saw where China is actually building all of these islands out there. I contend, it is illegally building them because they don't own the land. It is almost as if they are preparing for World War III. All of that is going on right now. So it is a very hostile world out there.

We saw the progress the President made yesterday with Kim Jong Un. That was nothing short of a miracle that they are sitting down and visiting, that they have agreed on certain denuclearization prospects. I think they have done a great job, and I am anxious to give this President the authority to continue in his work.

While we continue to work out the amendment process, I ask my colleagues to come down to the floor.

Let me say where we are right now. Senator Corker is blocking the consideration of all amendments, unless he receives a vote on his amendment. I appreciate very much the friendly attitude he has had toward this. He feels very strongly, but there is a blue-slip problem with this; that is, it is not going to be considered by the House because it is a revenue issue we are dealing with, and that is why it is a blue-slip issue. I know Senator Corker did want to correct that last night, and he attempted to do it. I have not heard that he has been able to successfully do it, and I don't believe he has.

There are several already who have said, in the event Corker tries to bring it up for a vote, they will block that vote. So that vote would be blocked.

Senator Paul and Senator Lee have amendments that are similar to each other. Each one is blocking unless he receives a vote. So we have Senator Lee saying, unless he gets a vote on his amendment, he is going to block anyone else from having an amendment or getting a vote; in other words, no amendments. Senator Paul, the same thing, no amendments. Now, their amendments are similar to each other, but there are some slight differences, but that is where they are right now.

However, Senator Graham and Senator Grassley have said, in the event Senator Paul or Senator Lee puts their amendment forward, they would stop their amendments from coming up. So that is where we are. We have the Corker amendment, and it is one that has a blue-slip problem. We have the indefinite detention amendment by Paul, and both Graham and Grassley have said they would object if that comes up for a vote. So we can't have a vote on that. There is nothing we can do except get them together to decide.

This significant bill we are talking about is the most significant bill of the year, and we can't move on it until--and, I agree, there is a problem. I have talked to a lot of our Members who are fairly new Members, and they talk about the Senate process and that one person can stop everything from happening. Well, it has been that way a long time, and this is where we seem to have to pay dearly for it. I have to say this also because many times on legislation we have on the floor, it is Democrat versus Republican, Republican versus Democrat. Well, Senator Reed and I don't have any disagreement. We disagree on some of the issues we are going to be dealing with as we debate amendments--and that is going to happen this week--but we both agree the other has the chance to present his best case and try to win on the issues.

So that is going on, and this is one of the rare cases where I guess all the problems we are having objecting to amendments are all coming from the Republican side. I hope our Republicans will get together with each other and determine what areas they actually will be objecting to. That is where we are right now.

Let me, one more time, commend Senator Reed for the cooperation we are getting between the Democrats and Republicans on this, the most significant bill of the year.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we just heard a very lengthy explanation of an amendment that no one had seen until about an hour ago--at least I don't know of anyone who has.

I think the Senator from Tennessee has every right to do what he can to get his amendment heard, and there are opportunities other than the Defense Authorization bill. One of the problems--and I have worked on these Defense authorization bills for years and years--decades--is that they know it is going to pass. It has passed for 57 consecutive years. So a lot of people who want to put in things that are nongermane and very often controversial want to put them on that because they know it is going to pass.

Senator Corker's is not the only amendment that is a problem amendment for this. There are two other nongermane amendments, one by Senator Lee and one by Senator Paul. They say: If I don't get a vote on my amendment, then I am going to stop all other amendments from coming up, so nobody gets to have an amendment.

At the same time that they are saying that about the Paul amendment and the Lee amendment, we have other Members, such as Senator Grassley and Senator Graham, who are both saying: We are going to make sure you don't get a vote on that. So, whatever the case is, you have opposing parties saying: If you get a vote on something I disagree with, I am going to stop all amendments from coming forth. In a way, they can do that, and I can see that happening right now.

I would ask my friend--because I am going to object; I am going to object not just because of the underlying bill but because it is an amendment that changes the underlying bill.

I have had occasion to talk to two Members of the House who will be part of our conference committee, who strenuously object, not so much to the content of the amendment but to the fact that this is being put on. It will force the House to go back in and reconsider their bill, according to our friend who just advised us of that. So I don't want to do anything that is going to either jeopardize or delay the passage of the Defense authorization bill.

I just got back from Afghanistan, Kuwait, and places all over the world where our troops are, and they all know that this is the week that help is on its way.

We have suffered in this Chamber for the last 10 years. During the Obama administration--I don't say this in a negative way about him, but I will say that he didn't have a strong national defense as a top priority, and he had a policy in which he said: We can't do anything about sequestration in defense unless we do the same thing for the nondefense programs.

What does that tell you? It tells you there is no priority for defending America. That is not what our Constitution says. That should be a priority.

As a result, we have a lot of systems that have gone down. As General Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said: We are losing our competitive edge. We are losing it. Actually, he said that 2 years ago, so we have lost it in some areas.

Artillery is a good example. Right now, artillery is measured by two means--one by rapid fire and one by range. Both China and Russia now have better artillery than we have in the United States. Most people don't believe that. They don't know what has happened to our military.

Hypersonic is the new weapon that operates at five times the speed of sound. This is something we have been working on. We are racing against our peer competitors--China and Russia--and they are ahead of us. They are ahead of us in the area of the nuclear triad. We haven't done anything to our nuclear program in the last 10 years, and they are ahead of us.

So all these things are happening. The troops know it is out there. They know their pay raise is in this bill. They know their benefits are in this bill. They know it is a good bill. It should pass unanimously in the U.S. Senate. But if you start putting something on it that, No. 1, doesn't belong on it in terms of germaneness, and, No. 2, is going to cause a pause that could be detrimental to our fighting troops

and for getting the bill done, then I wouldn't want to do that.

So I would like to join Senator Corker in finding another bill. I will do all I can to help him to get that on as an amendment, but not to the Defense authorization bill. I think this would cause a lot of damage. The House agrees with this. I can't let that happen. For that reason, I object.

Mr. President, first of all, I appreciate the comments by the Senator from South Dakota. I think the point is, this is the most important bill of the year.

I want to make only a couple of comments, and I was hoping to make these comments while the Senator from Tennessee was still here. One is that I have a disagreement because he mentioned that this bill--the most important bill of the year--is very often not considered until November or December. The absolute deadline is the end of December. I can remember getting within 2 or 3 days of that deadline in the past, and, if that happened, then our flyers wouldn't get flight pay or there would no longer be any hazard pay. There were a lot of things we would have to give up that we couldn't afford to give up.

We made a commitment--and it wasn't just me by myself; it was with the Senator from Rhode Island, who is handling the bill on the Democratic side--that we wanted to have amendments. We preferred not to have nongermane amendments, and that would be my goal, if I am around here next year when we do this, to lay groundwork so that we don't have nongermane amendments. As I said, this is a bill that will pass. Normally, for things that don't pass any other way, if they can get them on as amendments, they can get them passed.

We have the same situation happening right now, not just with Senator Corker but also with Senator Rand Paul and the Senator from Utah. That wasn't going to work either way. The problem I had with Senator Corker's change was it was a very long change that changed the underlying bill, and, as was pointed out by the Senator from South Dakota, that would mean we would have to go back over to the House. I don't feel comfortable doing that when we have all of those kids out there who are looking at pay raises and wondering what is really happening in Washington. Is there really not the support we anticipated that they all had?

I am sincere when I say this; he isn't here now, but I said it when he was here. If Senator Corker wants to get this done, and I know he does, I will help him. We have a lot of time to find another bill that might be more germane, but it would not be on this bill that we really can't afford to jeopardize. I feel strongly about that. We were attempting to help him get a vote initially, and then, when he changed the underlying bill, that meant we would have to go back to everyone. He mentioned his coauthors, and we don't know how many of those coauthors would still be supporting his amendment if they knew it was changing the underlying bill.

Those are the problems we have here, and I think we want to get on with, as rapidly as possible, getting these amendments opened up so that people can vote on the amendments and hopefully get the bill done this week. I don't know if it will be this week or not.

Senator Corker was also implying we are doing something for this President with this amendment, and I wish to remind everyone of the fact that there are several things the President--our new President-- had in mind. He wanted to privatize air traffic control. I almost singlehandedly stopped that, and that was one of his main objectives. Also, he wanted to have a BRAC round in this bill that is on the floor now, and we stopped that. Many of the provisions that he wanted we have taken out of the bill.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first of all, let me state how much I appreciate the passion the Senator from New York has on this issue. She has been so outspoken on this in committee, and I think most of us agree that there are problems out there that need to be addressed.

In 2014, a congressionally mandated, independent panel of experts determined that there is no evidence that removing the authority to convene courts martial from commanders would reduce the incidence of sexual assault, increase reporting of sexual assaults, or improve the quality of investigations and prosecutions in sexual assault cases in the Armed Forces.

The Department of Defense opposes this amendment on the grounds that doing so will endanger military readiness and combat effectiveness without promoting the goal of eliminating sexual assault.

I don't know what the intentions of the Senator from New York are on this amendment, but in all fairness, I have to state that I will be opposing it. We did consider this in committee, and I have never seen a stronger advocate for a cause or an amendment than the Senator from New York. For some of us who have been in military service--I do have a problem with taking away the authority that has always historically been with the commander and feel that would not be to the benefit of the overall system.

Two years ago, Congress passed extensive military justice reform, which will come into effect next year. I think that is correct. Rather than imposing additional reforms, I think we ought to allow the DOD to work on implementing the previous legislation to see if that resolves some of the problems that are articulated very effectively by the Senator from New York.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first of all, the comments that were made by my friend from Florida are right on target.

I recall--actually, it was 30 years ago--a book that was written by Anthony Kubek called, ``Modernizing China.'' Everything he said at that time that was going to happen in the future has now happened with the leaders and the freedoms that China has never known. Then, when you go and see what is happening all around the world right now with China and in the South China Sea--they are building all of these islands down there. Our allies believe they are preparing for World War III, so that is really serious stuff.

Anyway, we are going to be voting in a few minutes on moving forward on the bill that every year, arguably, is the most significant bill of the year. It has passed now for 57 consecutive years. We are anxious to get to the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act.

It is our hope, as we consider the bill this week, that we can have an open amendment process, just as we did in the committee markup, where we considered 300 bipartisan amendments.

I am joined here by Senator Reed, who is the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. We are all in agreement on a lot of things, one being an open amendment process. We want to make sure everyone has an opportunity to offer their amendments.

Unfortunately, with the rules of the Senate, it is sometimes difficult because people can object to anything, and then everything stops. But on this bill, I can't imagine it is going to happen because of the significance of this bill.

We can't overstate the significance of the NDAA legislation, which prioritizes modernizing our forces. There is widespread agreement that we need this legislation.

Just look at some of the headlines. This weekend, the Washington Post had an article about how the Pentagon fears we aren't keeping pace with China and Russia in the area of hypersonic weapons. Hypersonic weapons are weapons that move at five times the speed of sound. We are actually behind both China and Russia in developing that capability.

We could say the same thing about the triad nuclear progress. We have done virtually nothing in the last 10 years while we have watched China and Russia go beyond this. Of course, these are the things we are addressing.

On Memorial Day, the Oklahoman discussed how China and Russia have artillery capabilities. Artillery capabilities are generally looked at in terms of rapid fire and range, and they are ahead of us in both of these areas.

This idea that America has the best of everything is something that most

people believe, but we have fallen behind. We need not be critical of how we got behind. That is not important now. We know where we are, and we know we can start with this bill, and we are going to be having a motion to advance the bill.

Let me say this. During the consideration of this bill in committee, we had well-attended meetings. We actually considered 300 amendments during the course of consideration in conference to bring it to the floor out of committee, and it passed unanimously, so it is something we worked on very closely together.

Senator Jack Reed and I worked very closely, and we had very few disagreements. I think we both agree on this: We have to get the bill done, and we want to have an open amendment process. If, for some reason, there is a lot of objection to that, we will express ourselves, and, hopefully, we will be successful.

With that, I thank Senator Reed not only for the cooperation we have had--not just from Senator Reed--but also for his leadership in the committee so that we could come to the point where we are today.

Mr. President, let me make one more comment because it is not very often we come with a really significant piece of legislation that everyone agrees on; that everyone agrees we have to have. There is no question about that. I would say this also has the support of not just me and Senator Reed but also the leadership in the minority and the majority in the Senate. The one thing everyone agrees on is an open amendment process.

It is frustrating, and I ask my friend from Rhode Island if he agrees with this; that under the Senate rules, one person can really make it very difficult--in fact, one person can preclude us from having any votes on amendments just because that is the way the Senate works. Last week, we experienced that on Thursday. We wanted to advance the bill at that time and bring it forward, but we couldn't because of just one individual making a demand that his amendment be heard. So I am hoping we discourage people from doing that.

I think Senator Reed would join me in encouraging our Members to bring their amendments down to start moving this forward before something happens that obstructs the progress we anticipate we are going to be enjoying.

Mr. President, there are some issues where we are going to have a partisan difference. We already pretty much know where they are. There are going to be some controversial votes, and that is fine. That is the way this is supposed to be, and this is a good way to settle it.

I recently came back from Afghanistan, Kuwait, and a lot of places where we have our troops. Let me say that if we don't go ahead and get this done--because we have already announced the bill being done as we speak--we have an awful lot of troops out there who are going to really wonder: Are we really supportive, offering our support to them, these guys and gals who are out risking their lives and doing the heavy lifting?

So we are anxious to get started, and we will have the vote shortly. We will get on the bill. I would like to go ahead and start in on amendments so, hopefully, that will take place.

With that, I yield the floor.

Let me make one comment about this. First of all, I would say to the Senator from Tennessee how much I appreciate the courtesy he has expressed and the way he has dealt with it and talked about his interest. I think he and I actually had a disagreement on the content of one of his interests, but, nonetheless, we talked it over, and we had a chance to iron those things out. I do want to publicly thank you for not running in and objecting and making it difficult for us to get our jobs done.