Floor Statements

Mr. President, the 21st century will be shaped by the outcome of the strategic competition between the United States and China. Like our Nation's previous contest with the Soviet Union, the outcome of this great contest will help determine the world that our children and our grandchildren live in.

There are only two real possibilities: Either the United States will remain the preeminent global superpower or we will be replaced by China. This truth is recognized on both sides of the aisle in this body. The contest between our two countries will involve every aspect of national life--including military might, diplomatic skill, economic strength, and the deepest values that shape our societies.

The scope and complexity of this challenge calls for bold action, and that is what the Endless Frontier Act is about. This week the Senate has an opportunity to come together on a bipartisan basis and move forward on legislation, now known as the United States Innovation and Competition Act. This will make our Nation more economically competitive, improve protections for U.S. intellectual property and research, and keep us a step ahead of China in this area of high-stakes competition.

This bill does so by increasing research at the National Science Foundation and dramatically increasing R&D at a new National Science Foundation directorate. Other Agencies in the Federal Government will also see dramatic increases in the important research that they perform.

The Endless Frontier Act, as reported by the Commerce Committee, is a major part of this comprehensive legislative effort. Other committees have also been important partners in this legislation. In particular, I congratulate Chairman Menendez and Ranking Member Risch of the Foreign Relations Committee for producing the Strategic Competition Act, which was reported out of their committee on a 21-to-1 vote.

I also commend Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Peters and Ranking Member Portman; Banking Committee Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Toomey; Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Chair Murray and Ranking Member Burr; and Judiciary Chair Durbin and Ranking Member Grassley for their importan contributions to the substitute product.

I will focus my remarks on the Commerce Committee's contributions to the Endless Frontier Act. Last week, the Commerce Committee held a markup to consider this legislation. We considered hundreds of amendments and adopted over 100 of them into the reported bill, including over 20 bipartisan, separately introduced bills. The markup at times was challenging, but in the end the bill passed the committee on a bipartisan 24-to-4 vote.

The Endless Frontier Act will enhance U.S. science and technology leadership through key investments in R&D, regional economic development, and manufacturing.

The bill will accomplish these goals in the following ways: First, it will preserve the core basic research mission of the National Science Foundation. The NSF is the world's gold standard for funding basic research, a sector that fuels new waves of innovation across our society. Basic research answers the fundamental questions of scientific inquiry needed to develop major innovations. The internet, GPS, cell phones, and many other breakthrough technologies have their origins in National Science Foundation-funded research. The Endless Frontier Act will authorize funding increases in NSF's core science portfolio to support the most promising research proposals. That is the first thing.

Secondly, this bill will establish a new Directorate of Technology and Innovation at the NSF to drive faster innovation in key technology focus areas, such as artificial intelligence, or AI, and robotics. We included strong coordination measures to ensure that programs at the new Technology Directorate do not duplicate R&D programs of other Federal Agencies, such as the Department of Energy. These provisions are designed to ensure the wise

expenditure of taxpayer dollars by preventing bureaucratic turf wars, which can slow down innovation.

Third, this legislation will protect intellectual property and research from foreign governments--most notably, China. The Endless Frontier Act will establish a research security office at the NSF and create a clearinghouse to share information about security risks. It also puts forward policies to protect controlled information, including a plan for background checks on researchers.

In addition, it will take critical steps to guard against Chinese intellectual property theft by prohibiting NSF funds from going to researchers who are part of a Chinese talent program or an institution with formal ties to a Confucius Institute. This is a new and important step.

Fourth, this bill will reduce the geographic concentration of R&D in a handful of States and universities. Put simply, this bill will be a game changer for the R&D geographic diversity that many of us have sought for years, if not decades. America can maintain our leadership over China only with a sustained effort that is national in scope. We should tap into the wide-ranging talents, expertise, and capabilities of Americans across this land, including Nevada and Mississippi.

The Endless Frontier Act will help address these long-standing disparities by increasing funding for the Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, which we have all come to know as EPSCoR. Participation in EPSCoR helps institutions in many States and Territories improve their research capacities and, therefore, compete more effectively for Federal R&D funding. The legislation also invests in minority serving institutions and builds up research capacity in emerging institutions, which have traditionally received a relatively small share of Federal research dollars.

No. 5, this bill will boost regional economic development through the Regional Technology Hub Program.

No. 6, it will support manufacturing programs, in part, by quadrupling the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, which already exists.

No. 7, it will help America win the ``New Space Race'' against China by including the NASA Authorization Act, which the Senate passed unanimously last year. The NASA bill allows Congress to set priorities and guardrails for the space Agency's exploration and research programs.

No. 8, this bill will authorize a number of telecommunication programs to improve our telecom workforce and help get all Americans connected to high-speed and reliable broadband.

This bill also includes several bills that I have championed, including the Rural STEM Education Act, the Advanced Technological Manufacturing Act, the Improving Minority Participation and Careers in Telecommunications Act, and the Telecommunications Supply Chain Diversity Promotion Act--significant legislation and a mouthful, too.

Overall, this is a strong bill, but it can be made better. As I mentioned at the Commerce Committee's markup last week, although the bill reported out of the committee makes important changes to the underlying bill, I regret the rushed process that was followed.

The underlying bill was introduced on April 20, just under a month ago. Only yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Schumer laid down a 1,400- page substitute that not only includes the Endless Frontier Act, but major legislation from the Foreign Relations, Homeland Security, Banking, HELP, and Judiciary Committees. Now known as the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act--USICA, I suppose--this legislation will make significant changes to our innovation ecosystem and the missions of our Federal Agencies.

A bill of this magnitude would normally take a year to write and involve soliciting input from Members and stakeholders across our country to craft a consensus package. Clearly, the Senate should consider this bill with an open amendment process.

Prematurely shutting down debate on amendments without this open process would send a false signal to China and the American people that we are divided in an area where, actually, we are united and together.

And then, when all is said and done, the effort will have to be paid for and will be subject to appropriations.

I hope the majority's determination to rush this legislation through the Senate is not designed to use a partisan reconciliation bill to appropriate funding for these important initiatives. Science has always been debated in a bipartisan way in this body. Leaving one party on the sidelines in the appropriation process, which I hope will not happen, would have a detrimental consequences for the long-term stability of this legislation.

So on the whole, I am positive and optimistic about this bill and about the process that will get us to the end of both parties' desire.

I thank my colleague, Senator Cantwell, for her work as chair of the Commerce Committee to get this bill on the floor today, and I look forward to working with her to improve the bill in the next step in the process--an open amendment process

Madam President, my friend from Ohio is correct. In many respects, it ought to feel like morning again in America. After all, COVID-19 is finally on the retreat. The vaccines have been a roaring success because of Operation Warp Speed. One hundred and twenty-four million Americans are now fully immunized, and another 30 million are halfway there. With the exception of a few holdout States, the mask mandates are gone, thank goodness. By all measures, our economy should be firing on all cylinders, but America now has a workforce problem. People are not heading back to work.

In February, the Congressional Budget Office predicted our economy would return to its prepandemic size by the middle of the year without receiving any new stimulus from Congress. Regrettably, Democrats in this Chamber brushed off that optimism from the CBO. They decided to pass more stimulus, to the tune of $1.9 trillion.

This time, the money was excessive. It was poorly targeted and passed without bipartisan consensus. Three months later, the results are unflattering for my Democratic friends. Last month, our economy produced a paltry 266,000 jobs when experts had predicted over 1 million jobs--this at a time when our economy has a record 8 million jobs available, jobs that need to be filled.

Small businesses are desperate to hire. Restaurants, for instance, are having trouble finding people to become waiters and chefs. The National Restaurant Association reports that, in January, 8 percent of restaurant operators said finding and keeping workers was their No. 1 concern. That number doubled in February. It doubled again in March and then again in April. According to the latest survey, 57 percent of restaurant operators now say that finding and keeping employees is their biggest problem. The same problem exists across multiple sectors--hotels, construction, lawn care, welding, tech. The list goes on.

Americans would be streaming back into the workforce if not for the counterproductive policies passed by the majority. Government is now paying millions of able-bodied Americans to stay home, to stay home when they could be back on the job. Expanded unemployment benefits have become a hindrance to our recovery rather than a help, just as many of us had warned.

March 2020 was a unique moment of emergency that called for urgent financial relief for the American people. This body passed it on a sweeping bipartisan basis. But it is now May of 2021. The hour of emergency has passed. Americans need policies to help them reenter the workforce.

Fortunately, millions of Americans have Governors who are pushing back against Washington's pay-to-stay-at-home policies. Governor Tate Reeves, in my State of Mississippi, is one example. I commend Governor Reeves for opting out of the expanded Federal unemployment funds in order to help our State embark on a full recovery. Nearly half of all Governors now share the same mind and are saying no to those unnecessary funds.

Madam President, the American people elected a 50-50 Senate and a narrowly divided House. They do not want drastic changes or dramatic growth of government. They simply want to put this pandemic behind them and get back to providing for their families.

Americans need government to get out of the way, and Republicans stand with the American people and on the side of a full recovery.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object--and I shall certainly not object--I simply want to say that this is the beginning of what I hope is an open amendment process, and I want to thank the chair of the Commerce Committee for working with us to get these first two amendment votes scheduled this afternoon. And I certainly withdraw my reservation.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, today I honor a visionary leader whose years at the helm of Ingalls Shipbuilding have left a profound impact on the State of Mississippi and on the national security posture of the United States. I have had the pleasure of associating with Mr. Brian Cuccias both personally and professionally over many years.

As president of Ingalls Shipbuilding, Mr. Cuccias led the largest manufacturing employer in Mississippi. Located near Brian's hometown of Biloxi, the Pascagoula shipyard sits on 800 acres of land along the Pascagoula River. With 11,500 employees, Ingalls is the largest supplier of U.S. Navy surface combatants and has built nearly 70 percent of the current fleet of Navy warships.

Mr. Cuccias began his career at Ingalls in 1979. when he joined Litton Data Systems, which was then a major division of Litton Industries, then owner of what is today Ingalls Shipyard. He served as a financial analyst for several Navy programs, including amphibious assault ships and Spruance and Kidd-class destroyers. Since then, he has held a number of positions of increasing responsibility, including assistant to the group vice president of Avondale industries; sector vice president for material for Northrop Grumman Ship Systems; program manger and vice president for Northrop Grumman's DDG 1000 program; and vice president for surface combatants for Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding.

Mr. Cuccias left his mark on both the shipbuilding industry and Navy surface combatant programs. Universally recognized for his superb leadership, business acumen, and commitment to maritime security, his 2014 appointment as president of Ingalls Shipbuilding came as no surprise to those of us who knew him. During his tenure, Ingalls has continued to set the standard for shipbuilding excellence, delivering five national security cutters to the Coast Guard, along with two America-class amphibious assault ships and two San Antonio-class amphibious transport docks to the Navy. Additionally, Mr. Cuccias oversaw the reactivation of the Arleigh Burke-class production line, delivering four guided missile destroyers to the Navy after a 5-year hiatus. As he departs, he leaves the shipyard in perhaps its strongest position ever, with 13 ships in various stages of production.

Mr. Cuccias has left an indelible impact on the Ingalls workforce. He spearheaded numerous investments in the health and safety of shipyard employees and their families. In 2015, Ingalls dedicated a Family Health Center in Gautier, MS a full-service health care facility for employees, dependents, and retirees covered by the shipyard's health care plans. As part of a $600 million 4-year upgrade to build the Shipyard of the Future, he supervised the installation of covered, environmentally controlled facilities to protect workers from the elements--again prioritizing the health of the Ingalls workforce.

Always active in his community, Mr. Cuccias served on the executive committee and board of directors for the Mississippi Gulf Coast Business Council, as well as on the boards of directors for the Mississippi Economic Council, the Mississippi Partnership for Economic Development, the Jackson County Economic Development Foundation, and the Salvation Army of Mobile, AL. In 2018, he was honored as one of the Top CEOs in Mississippi by the Mississippi Business Journal.

I want to express my deep gratitude and appreciation to Brian Cuccias for his outstanding leadership in Mississippi and for his unwavering support for the missions of the U.S. Navy. As he departs Ingalls for retirement, I wish him and his family ``fair winds and following seas.''

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

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to say thank you and farewell to a member of the Commerce Committee staff who is leaving the Senate soon. Commander Andrew L. Pate--Andy, as we know him--is completing his 2-year assignment as senior policy adviser and Coast Guard congressional fellow on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

For those who are not aware, the Coast Guard's congressional fellows program is a highly competitive program that assigns Coast Guard officers to congressional offices and committees as detailees. This elite program brings the Coast Guard's ``cream of the crop'' to Washington. These officers uphold the Coast Guard's core values of honor, respect, and devotion to duty. These special assignments serve to educate Coast Guard officers on the inner workings of Congress. The Coast Guard benefits from this program by bringing its unique perspective to the process of drafting and passing legislation, as well as gaining leaders within its own ranks who deeply understand the legislative process. And, of course, the Congress gains immensely from the obvious leadership and intelligence and work ethic of these great men and women.

Andy Pate was an obvious choice for this fellowship--not once but twice. In July of 2008, not long after I arrived in the Senate, then- Lieutenant Pate joined my office to serve as my first Coast Guard fellow, where he set a high bar for those who would come after him.

Following his departure, Andy completed tours as a commanding officer of Coast Guard cutters around the world. His operational assignments have focused on search and rescue, counternarcotics, migrant interdiction, homeland security, defense operations, and living marine resource protection programs spanning the North Atlantic, the Equator, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Arabian Gulf.

Andy also served as strategic analyst in the Commandant's Advisory Group at Coast Guard headquarters and as a transition team member for the 25th Commandant of the Coast Guard. He went on to become the Coast Guard's international security fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Since rejoining my team in 2019, Andy has had a significant impact on the Commerce Committee. His expertise as a cutterman and senior officer has meaningfully informed the committee's efforts, culminating in the enactment of the Elijah E. Cummings Coast Guard Authorization Act--the service's 2-year comprehensive reauthorization.

Additionally, Commander Pate championed a key Coast Guard provision in the Johnny Isakson and David P. Roe, M.D. Veterans Health Care and Benefits Improvement Act. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress extended lease protections for servicemembers in residential or vehicle

leases impacted by ``stop movement'' orders. However, the original bill unintentionally omitted the Coast Guard. The small but important change Andy initiated has had a positive impact on thousands of his fellow Coast Guard members and their families.

This is an exciting moment for Andy. Soon, he will assume command of the Coast Guard Cutter Mohawk in Key West, FL. I know the Mohawk and the Coast Guard will benefit from Andy's steadfast spirit and determination.

I salute Andy's service and leadership in our Nation's armed services, and I thank him for all of his hard work. I have been blessed with many fellows. I rise to speak for fellows really only when they come for two tours in my office.

Andy's presence on the Commerce Committee will be missed, but his colleagues and his country are grateful for his dedication and diligence. I know Kristen, Aidan, Karissa, and Alexander are proud of him also.

On behalf of the American people, I extend my deepest gratitude and wish Andy Pate the best of luck in his future endeavors.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise this afternoon to call attention to a courageous Russian hero who is in danger even as I speak. He is a man who has consistently stood up to Vladimir Putin and his cronies and has, on numerous occasions, placed his own life in jeopardy to bring the truth to light. The lawless thugs in the Kremlin often avoid saying his name in public, but here on the Senate floor, I am proud to stand in solidarity with Alexei Navalny.

It was just last August that Alexei Navalny, Russia's foremost opposition leader, was poisoned with a deadly nerve agent. Millions of us remember seeing the video of his being stricken on an airplane and hearing his painful cries, the crew members unsure how to soothe his pain. Thanks to the quick diplomatic work of our friends in Germany, Mr. Navalny was evacuated to Berlin, where he received expert medical attention and, against all odds, recovered from this poisoning.

An ordinary man would have stayed safe and very far away from the Kremlin, but Alexei Navalny is no ordinary man. He is a Russian patriot who envisions a different kind of Russia, one where citizens have a say in government, where freedom blooms, and where the President does not siphon away funds intended for hospitals in order to build secret palaces or to enrich members of his kleptocracy.

So, 3 months ago, Mr. Navalny returned to Russia, knowing full well the dangers he would face. Immediately upon his arrival, he was arrested at the airport for a parole violation, which resulted from his hospitalization, which resulted from his poisoning. He now sits in one of the most notorious penal colonies in Russia, known for its psychological torture. He has been deemed a flight risk and is awakened eight times a night under the guise of monitoring his whereabouts. His lawyers were recently prevented from seeing him. Reports are that he is suffering from severe back pain and other health

concerns and has received inadequate medical care.

This is a familiar sounding story, but one thing is clear: The Russian dictatorship is terrified of Alexei Navalny. He is a threat to them because he has exposed their unbridled corruption and urged voters to demand that the government respect their rights. Because of that, Alexei Navalny's life is in danger at this very moment.

The tens of thousands of demonstrators who turned out across Russia to support this jailed opposition leader send an unmistakable message to the Kremlin: You cannot suppress the voice of the people indefinitely.

Freedom-loving Americans and freedom-loving people around the world are, today, crying out for justice for Alexei Navalny. He endures the suffering of many before him--in Russia, people like Sergei Magnitsky and Boris Nemtsov and, abroad, people like Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi--whose legacies and movements did not rot while they were in prison but, instead, helped to bring down oppressive governments.

At this point, I yield to the Senator from Colorado for a brief intervention before I close with a thought or two.

In reclaiming my time, I appreciate the work of my friend Senator Cardin.

Senator Coons from Delaware was also here, but, unfortunately, he had to leave.

They also wanted to make it clear that, on a bipartisan basis, on both sides of the aisle, the U.S. Senate stands for freedom-loving people in Russia and for their spokesman, Alexei Navalny. We intend to shine the light of public opinion on the actions of the Russian kleptocracy and dictatorship with regard to prisoners and patriots like Alexei Navalny.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I wish to recognize Mr. Christopher Pickens, a Knauss Sea Grant fellow on the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Mr. Pickens has had a significant impact during his time as a fellow. His expertise on fisheries management and ocean sciences has meaningfully contributed to the committee's efforts. He has worked on several pieces of legislation that have passed the Senate or have become law, such as the FLOODS Act and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Officer Corps Amendments Act. His contributions will help improve ocean and flood monitoring to keep Americans safe, promote deep sea ocean exploration, and inform the stewardship of our Nation's marine resources.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Mr. Pickens for all of the fine work he has done and wish him luck in the years to come.

Mr. President, we might as well hear clearly what the ruling of the Chair was, so if you would repeat that, sir.

What is the question? Is it, Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained? Is that the question?

Mr. President, I could never match the eloquence of the Senator from Oklahoma, who just spoke about the same topic about which I rise at this moment.

I remember when Democrats running for office would tell the American people that they were pro-choice, but they felt that abortion should be safe, it should be legal, but it should be rare--safe, legal, and rare. I remember when Bill Clinton said that to the American people. And I think about how far the left has gone from that to the attitude that my friend from Oklahoma has described.

I first encountered the March for Life when I was a staff member up here in Washington, DC, working for then-Congressman Trent Lott, 1981. It was wonderful to see those people, and it will be wonderful to join them online in a virtual march this Friday.

I can tell you also that those people who say ``We follow the science'' are those of us now who are pro-life because, as the Senator from Oklahoma pointed out, as more and more information comes out about DNA, about the pictures--about the pictures that my wife and I have had on our refrigerator of our unborn grandchildren--more and more Americans, more and more people around the world understand that the science is on the side of those of us who are pro-life; that the beating hearts, the faces that we see in these young unborn children are, indeed, humans made in God's image and that they are entitled to the protections that our Founders outlined, protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Twenty-five years ago, 56 percent of Americans considered themselves pro-choice. Only 33 percent said they were pro-life. I was glad to be part of that 33 percent, but I am certainly glad to see our numbers have risen. Today's pro-life movement has closed that gap completely. The country is now evenly split.

But I will say this for some of my fellow Americans who call themselves pro-choice: There are differences within that group.

Gallup reports 81 percent of Americans think abortion should be illegal in the third trimester. Why can't we get Democrats and Republicans and Independents of the right and center and left to agree to that--where 81 percent of Americans said we should make abortion illegal in the third trimester. Sixty-five percent say it should be illegal in the second trimester.

In addition, a Marist poll last year found that 60 percent of Americans are against using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion. Even if some of them believe abortion should be legal, 60 percent of Americans--a supermajority--are against using tax dollars to fund abortion. That is up from 54 percent just 1 year before.

Because the science is moving in our favor, the evidence is moving in our favor, public opinion is moving in our favor. That same poll found 35 percent of Democrats oppose using taxpayer funds for abortion. Many of these Americans might check the box saying they are pro-choice, but they are willing to draw an important distinction between abortion being legal in some circumstances and taking taxpayer dollars from pro- life Americans to actually fund abortion.

In essence, these people are saying: We can disagree about abortion being illegal, but let's not force pro-life Americans to pay for a practice they find abhorrent and morally reprehensible.

That is a view that I do not agree with because I am solidly pro- life, but it is an eminently reasonable view.

Why can't we enact that into a permanent statute in the United States? It is a position that Congress has adopted every year when we pass the Hyde amendment to keep Federal dollars from going toward abortion.

I regret that our present President does not seem to share this view, although he once held this view. Days ago, in one of his first acts in office, our new President reversed the Mexico City policy, allowing American tax dollars to begin funding abortions in foreign countries once again. This decision showed disregard, to me, for the consciences of millions of American taxpayers who are pro-life. I was appalled by this decision. I know many of my constituents were. I think Congress should pass legislation enshrining the Mexico City policy in statute.

But at this moment, I rise proposing a more familiar and direct and, I think, politically popular step and that would be to put no taxpayer funding of abortion legislation into the permanent statute rather than passing it each year as the Hyde amendment. Of all the abortion-related bills that reach the Senate floor, this one should be the least controversial. The Hyde amendment is standard policy. It has passed annually for more than 40 consecutive years, during terms of Republican Presidents, terms of Democratic Presidents, during Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate and when it was, indeed, the other way around. It has stood the test of time and enjoys broad consensus in this body and in the United States of America. Passing this legislation to make the Hyde Amendment permanent would keep taxpayers from having to worry each year if their money is going to be used for an abortion in this country.

I stand this Friday with millions and millions of Americans who will join in supporting life, and I urge my colleagues to send an important signal to all of the American people that Congress is serious about seeking unity and healing.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation as we work to build bipartisan consensus for life in the days ahead.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I honor a superb leader and warrior. I have had the privilege of associating with VADM Fritz Roegge both personally and professionally over many years, and it has been my pleasure to do so. After 40 years of uniformed service, Vice Admiral Roegge will be retiring from the U.S. Navy. On this occasion, I believe it is fitting to recognize his distinguished service and dedication to our Navy.

Vice Admiral Roegge is an honors graduate of the University of Minnesota with a bachelor of science in mechanical engineering and was commissioned through the Reserve Officers' Training Corps Program. He went on to earn a master of science in engineering management from the Catholic University of America and a master of arts with highest distinction in national security and strategic studies from the Naval War College. He was a fellow of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Seminar XXI program and of the Harvard Kennedy School program for Senior Executives in National and International Security.

His sea tours include USS Whale (SSN 638), USS Florida (SSBN 728) (Blue), USS Key West (SSN 722), and most prominently, command of USS Connecticut (SSN 22). His major command was as commodore of Submarine Squadron 22, with additional duty as commanding officer, Naval Support Activity La Maddalena, Italy.

Ashore, he has served on the staffs of both the Atlantic and Pacific Submarine Force commanders, on the staff of the Director of Naval Nuclear Propulsion, on the Navy staff in the Assessments Division (N81) and the Military Personnel Plans and Policy Division (N13), in the Secretary of the Navy's Office of Legislative Affairs at the U.S. House of Representatives, as the head of the Submarine and Nuclear Power Distribution Division (PERS 42) at the Navy Personnel Command, and as an assistant deputy director on the Joint Staff in both the Strategy and Policy (J5) and the Regional Operations (J33) Directorates.

Vice Admiral Roegge completed his first flag officer assignment as the deputy commander, Joint Functional Component Command for Global Strike at U.S. Strategic Command. He then served concurrently as commander, Submarine Group 8; commander, Submarines, Allied Naval Forces South; deputy commander, U.S. 6th Fleet; and director of Operations and Intelligence (N3), U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa. As a rear admiral, he served on the Navy staff as director, Military Personnel Plans and Policy Division (N13) with a concurrent period as director, Total Force Manpower Division (N12) and then as commander, Submarine Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet.

Vice Admiral Roegge now culminates his career of service to the Navy and the Nation as the 16th president of the National Defense University (NDU). NDU is the university of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the premier Joint Professional Military Education institution in the Department of Defense. NDU's mission to develop joint warfighters and other national security leaders through rigorous academics, research, and engagement has never been more important to our Nation and its security.

I want to express my gratitude and appreciation to Vice Admiral Roegge for his outstanding leadership and unwavering support of the missions of the U.S. Navy. I want to recognize his supportive family, Mrs. Julie Roegge and their two sons, Alex and Will. I wish Vice Admiral Roegge and his family ``fair winds and following seas.''

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business.

Madam President, I call to the Senators' attention today a disturbing article in the June 29, 2019, issue of The Economist, on pages 36 and 37. It is about the military buildup in China and the way it affects the United States. It says:

Xi Jinping wants China's armed forces to be ``world class''

by 2050. He has done more to achieve this than any of his

predecessors.

I will quote from the lead of this article in The Economist.

Over the past decade, the People's Liberation Army (PLA)

has been lavished with money and arms. China's military

spending rose by 83 percent in real terms between 2009 and

2018, by far the largest growth spurt in any big country. The

splurge has enabled China to deploy precision missiles and

anti-satellite weapons that challenge American supremacy in

the western Pacific. China's leader, Xi Jinping, says his

``Chinese dream'' includes a ``dream of a strong armed

forces''. That, he says, involves ``modernising'' the PLA by

2035 and making it ``world-class''--in other words, America-

beating--by mid-century. He has been making a lot of

progress.

In the second column of this article, it goes on to say:

He has done more in the past three years to reform the PLA

than any leader since Deng Xiaoping.

This quote is not from some advocate of defense spending but is from one of the leading publications, The Economist.

I say to my colleagues, we need to be mindful of the threat that is arising to the United States from around the globe--not only from China, as I have just read, but also from Vladimir Putin's Russia, from Iran, and from international terrorism. There is a deteriorating security situation in almost every sector of the globe. The fact that the United States has always been super supreme and able to defend the free peoples of this world is being challenged. We can no longer assume that any war would never be a fair fight. That has been the goal of the United States if we have to go to war. And we want to avoid war. But the best way, in our judgment, as a national strategy down through the decades, to avoid conflict of any kind is to make sure that if America ever gets in a fight, it will not be a fair fight; it will be a fight where we have overwhelming superiority, so no one will dare challenge the sea lanes and the freedom that we stand for in the United States of America. That is being challenged today.

I would submit to you that it is a good time for the United States to point out that we passed the National Defense Authorization Act--the NDAA--on a huge bipartisan basis. It was 80-something votes to 8. It is just unbelievable, the way we came together under the leadership of Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Reed, his Democratic counterpart, working together as professionals, as legislators, and as Americans to send a strong statement that we need to go from the $700 billion that was spent last fiscal year to $750 billion to give our troops the pay raise they need, to recognize the sacrifice they have made, and to give our military--the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines--the tools they need, the equipment they need, and the innovation and manufacturing they need to get us where we need to go.

We went through a 7- or 8-year period when--we ought to all be ashamed because our fingerprints are all on it, those of us who were in office at the time. The distinguished Presiding Officer was not a Member of the Senate at that time, but those of us who were, we got our fingerprints on it, Republicans and Democrats. Somehow, try though we might, say what we might, we were unable to prevent sequestration from happening--an unthinkable result. The military branches couldn't believe this was happening and couldn't believe Congress would be so irresponsible, but somehow we were.

We have righted the ship over the past 2 years. It would be unthinkable to me, my fellow Americans, after making the progress to get back on the right track and return to responsible defense spending and responsible stewardship of our national security, if somehow we heeded some voices we have been hearing in Washington, DC, and around the country during the past few days about a continuing resolution, perhaps--maybe a continuing resolution of an entire year. The thinking there is, well, we just do a continuing resolution, and that will amount to level spending, and we can live with that.

I just left a hearing on the confirmation of GEN Mark Milley as the next, I hope, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and I asked him about that. Would a continuing resolution simply be level spending, and might we be able to live with that? And he absolutely made the point which we all know if we study the law. It is way more than level spending. It stops innovation. It stops the new starts. It stops everything that we planned in the NDAA, which we passed with an overwhelming bipartisan vote, and it makes it against the law for the shipbuilders to do anything new and for the people working on our next- generation aircraft to do anything new. It stops them in their tracks. It creates uncertainty in every branch of the military. And then we have to pay millions and billions to get back going again. It is an unthinkable result. Surely we can avoid that as Republicans and Democrats.

Let me quote now-retired Secretary Mattis. When he was asked about this very subject on a recent occasion, Secretary Mattis said this:

I cannot overstate the impact to our troops' morale from

all this uncertainty. The combination of rapidly changing

technology, the negative impact on military readiness

resulting from the longest continuous stretch of combat in

our Nation's history, and insufficient funding have created

an overstretched and under-resourced military.

According to Secretary Mattis, ``Under continuing resolutions, we actually lose ground.''

We need a budget deal. We need a 2-year budget deal, as we have had in the past. Give our defense leaders, the Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries, as well as the ones who put on the uniform and agreed, for a career, to put themselves in harm's way--give them the certainty they need in order to defend against the threats The Economist talked about and the threats General Mattis talked about. Give them that certainty.

A new CR--a continuing resolution--would prevent us from having that certainty. It would delay maintenance for the Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier. It would prevent a guided missile frigate program we already authorized from even starting. This would happen September 30 if we go to a continuing resolution. It would cripple research and development, and it would prevent the Pentagon from aligning its funding with upcoming priorities.

We need to realize a fact of life around here. I didn't exactly get my way in the election last November. If I had my druthers, the House of Representatives would have remained in Republican hands, with a Republican Speaker and a Republican Chair. The voters, in their wisdom, decided to vote for divided government last November.

Our team was elected to continue leadership in the U.S. Senate. The Democratic team was elected to leadership in the House of Representatives. And I can assure you, if I were writing a defense appropriations bill, which is half of discretionary spending, and all of the other appropriations bills, which is so-called nondefense discretionary, it would look far different from the bill

Speaker Nancy Pelosi proposes to write. I can assure you that it would look different and that we would have less domestic spending. But the fact of life is that Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, is the one who guides legislation here in the Senate, and Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat from California, is the one who guides legislation on the floor of the House of Representatives, and if we get a bill passed, we are going to have to get a compromise bill passed. If anybody within the sound of my voice doesn't realize this, they don't understand government. They don't understand the dynamics that have taken place since Philadelphia in 1776 and Philadelphia again in 1787, where give-and-take had to occur, but we moved things along for the greater good.

We can come to an agreement, or we can show ourselves to Vladimir Putin's Russia as unable to govern adequately, and we can show ourselves to Xi Jinping's China as unable to make the tough decisions to protect Americans. We have that choice, and we have a willingness on this side of the aisle and on the other side of the aisle. I was with some of my Democratic and Republican friends from the other body just yesterday. I think there is the willingness there. We are going to have to have an agreement that the administration will sign on to because the President's signature has to be affixed to this.

Now is the time--July 11, 2019--to get this decision made, before we leave for August. I would hope we wouldn't leave for August until we get that number agreed to. We come back after Labor Day, and then it is brinksmanship, and then suddenly it is shutdown city, and that is being threatened. Russia knows this, the Iranian leadership knows this, and China knows this. Let's do it now.

So I call on the Democratic and Republican leadership in the House, I call on our leadership, and I call on our President to get down to business in the next few days. Let's go ahead and make this decision that we know will eventually have to be made, make a responsible decision and send a message to the rest of the world that we intend to take care of our security.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I hope we will vote later on today to advance the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act. Members who have been around here a long time realize what a bipartisan tradition this has been for the Senate. Those listening to us should appreciate that and I think take note of basically a half-a-century tradition of passing this national defense bill on a bipartisan--overwhelmingly bipartisan--basis each year. We don't let a year pass. We have been able to successfully do that for approximately half a century. We will see later on today whether that tradition will continue, and I believe it will.

I think we will be able to work something out with the House of Representatives. There are some differences that have emerged over there that we did not have in the Armed Services Committee when we reported overwhelmingly just a few weeks ago.

I am very hopeful that we will continue this tradition. I hope we will do so particularly this year to build on the great progress we have made the last couple of years. I think we should admit on both sides of the aisle that we had perhaps let our national security slip a little in terms of a priority over the last several years. We rectified that a couple of years ago. What we have done not only at the authorization level but also at the appropriations level is send a strong signal to our allies around the world that we are back to emphasizing strength and back to emphasizing protection of Americans and American interests but also a signal to those who would wish us ill.

We know how dangerous the world is now. I think if any of the 100 of us or those within the sound of my voice were asked the question ``Is the world safer today than it was 2 years ago when we started on this quest to rebuild our defense?'' I think the answer would be no. The world still needs the strength of the United States of America to keep those trade lines open and to maintain the peace to which we have become so accustomed.

We will pass this bill, and then we will have the task--and I want everybody to understand this--we will have the task of getting the bills done to actually pay for what we authorize. That is where, quite frankly, I am worried--with some of the talk I hear around town about perhaps negotiations going on between Democrats and Republicans over here, between House and Senate Members, and even in the executive branch--about just not quite getting to a comprehensive appropriations bill this year.

Perhaps some people say that we can save a little money on the margin simply by having what we call a continuing resolution--what they call, at the Pentagon, a CR--to just fund the

government without directives in the appropriations bill for another year at the same level that we have, both domestically and militarily. We know that of that discretionary budget, 50 percent is national security. Everything else in the Federal Government is called domestic spending, and that is another 50 percent, approximately.

I am here to tell you that if you ask the experts who are charged with defending this great United States of America, they will tell you that a continuing resolution is not only a mistake for the United States of America, it is a disaster for national defense. We need to raise this issue and to point out what the people are saying that we rely on.

The Pentagon has made progress the last couple of years. We have committed to a 355-ship Navy. We are rebuilding the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and the Coast Guard. I can tell you that a continuing resolution, according to the experts--the uniformed people we put in office to make us safe--would reverse this progress. It would stop new programs, it would curtail production ramp-ups, and it would inhibit the flexibility necessary to make good resource allocations.

A weeklong CR would be a mistake. A yearlong CR would be a catastrophe for the defense of the United States of America.

With regard to the Navy and Marine Corps, it would delay heavy maintenance for the Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier. It would prevent the new guided missile frigate program from even starting. We have authorized this. We have already spent money getting ready for it. It would prevent the new guided missile program from beginning. It would cut the planned operations and maintenance budget by nearly $6 billion. It would cut O&M funds that are critical for readiness. It would prevent 18 critical research and development efforts from starting, including large, unmanned surface vessel maritime drones and artificial intelligence development. This would be part of the result of a 1-year continuing resolution. It would prohibit funding for 33 critical military construction projects. A 1-year CR or even a shorter CR would prevent, during its existence, procurement of one Virginia class submarine, one fleet ocean tug, and two landing craft utility vessels to support our marines during this time when the world is more dangerous than it has been in quite a while.

With regard to the Air Force, a 1-year CR would constrain Air Force spending at fiscal year 2019 levels, decreasing buying power by $11.8 billion. It would halt 88 new investment programs. It would delay awarding 40 MILCON projects across 18 States and limit the planned 4,400 total force end-strength growth. These are things we already voted for, but a 1-year CR would stop them. You can't do the extra 4,400 end-strength personnel we need.

With regard to the Army, it would negatively impact recent readiness gains and hamper modernization.

But don't take my word for it. Every chance I have gotten at committee level, we have asked the people in charge how a CR would affect our ability to defend the United States of America.

Here is what Gen. Joe Dunford, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said earlier this year. And he wasn't on some soapbox; he was just answering questions from a Member of the U.S. Senate. He said: ``[Past CRs have] delayed new starts and it's been incredibly inefficient in how we prioritize and allocate resources.''

Former Secretary of Defense Pat Shanahan said: ``A Continuing Resolution would hamstring the Department . . . we cannot start new initiatives . . . our funding would be in the wrong accounts . . . and we would lose buying power.''

Is that what we want, rather than do our jobs, rather than do hard negotiations between Democrats and Republicans and the administration and agree on a figure for domestic and national security that we don't love but that gets us where we need to be in terms of defending the country?

Gen. David Goldfein, the top Air Force four star in the land, said: ``[A] CR would have a significantly negative impact.'' Is that what we want to have for the Air Force, a significantly negative impact? He said: ``[I]t would put our end strength growth at risk because we would not be able to bring on the additional Airmen we need.''

GEN James McConville, Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, said: ``A continuing resolution would be devastating to the United States Army.''

This is not a politician; this is somebody who has given his career-- given his professional adult life to being an officer in the U.S. Army. He said that a continuing resolution ``would be devastating to the United States Army.''

Surely the elected representatives in the House and Senate can heed the words of these patriots and come to an agreement.

According to Lt. Gen. David Berger, Deputy Commandant of the Marine Corps for Combat Development, ``Procurements are going to be delayed. New starts you cannot do.'' These are new starts that we voted for and are expecting that the Department wants to do. If we pass a CR, they will not be able to do a new start.

The worst part about it for us is the unpredictability.

Jim Geurts, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, said: ``Budget uncertainty associated with the continuing resolution adds instability, inefficiency, delays contracting, and delays fielding of critical capabilities.''

We need to stifle any talk either in this building or the Pentagon or down the street at the other end of Pennsylvania about a 1-year continuing resolution as being beneficial to the United States of America. It would have an impact on every single State that does military manufacturing.

Those are just a few of the answers that have been given to us by the professionals we put in charge. Let's give our team what they need. Let's pass this bill this week, send it to the House, negotiate the differences that we have at the NDAA level, and patriotically do what we have done now for 58 straight years, but then, when we get back from this Independence Day break with our patriotic citizens and our families, let's get serious about arriving at a compromise number that gets us where we need to be in terms of continuing to make sure we have the resources to protect the United States of America.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object--

Mr. President, I don't think the answer to the question is going to be a surprise to my friend from Massachusetts. I will only say this, and I will try to do it briefly. I have been amazed, over the last 1\1/2\ years and even longer, at the intense, overblown rhetoric about this issue of net neutrality and the hyperbole we have heard on the floor of the Senate and elsewhere.

About 1\1/2\ years ago, the FCC voted on the Restoring Internet Freedom Order. It went into effect. It repealed what most of us considered a heavyhanded approach based on a law that took effect back in 1934.

When the FCC implemented this new restoring internet freedom order back a year and a half ago, I was just astounded by what was being said by my friends on the left. One Senator warned that this was practically the end of Netflix, YouTube, and Amazon. Another cautioned:

They want to get rid of the Federal Communications

Commission's net neutrality rules so that . . . Internet

Service Providers can indiscriminately charge more for

internet fast lanes, slow down websites, block websites, make

it harder and maybe even impossible for inventors,

entrepreneurs.

One tweet from my friends on the Democratic side said: ``If we don't save net neutrality, you'll get the internet one word at a time.'' That quote got three Pinocchios from even the Washington Post.

These things never happened. As a matter of fact, people on the other side of the issue who actually have taken the position of the Senator from Massachusetts have admitted that ISPs are delivering on consumers' expectations. They are not throttling websites.

As a matter of fact, here is what has happened since the FCC order went into effect a year and a half ago: Broadband providers large and small have deployed fiber networks to 5.9 million new homes--the largest number ever recorded. More Americans are connected at higher speeds than ever before. Capital expenditures have rebounded from the slump they suffered when the internet was subjected to title II.

This should surprise no one because the internet has thrived during Democratic and Republican administrations and during Democratic majorities on the FCC and Republican majorities on the FCC when we have taken the light-touch regulatory approach.

The issue seems to be title II regulation of rates. I would simply say to my brothers and sisters on the other side of the aisle that we can pass a law tomorrow afternoon providing Americans with all the protection they want from blocking, throttling, and preventing paid prioritization. What we will not do and what this President will not sign is legislation authorizing the Federal Government to set internet rates in the old 1934 Bell System of title II regulations. For that reason, I do object.