but while the midwest lost 3.5 million jobs in the last 20 years in the auto industry, the southeast gain 3.5 million jobs. we don't want to see our auto industry hurt. that is why, mr. president, i have respectfully said to president trump, even though -- i say, i saw him in nashville last week, said, mr. president, as you know, i agree with you and am proud of what has happened with the best commit in the last 18 years, with the lower taxes, with the fewer regulations, all of those things. it's the most significant accomplishments in at least 30 years by a conservative government. i would like to persuade you to change your mind on tariffs because our state is likely to be hurt more than any other state because in many ways we're the number-one auto state. what i would suggest, respectfully, to the president is the focus shift from tariffs

to reciprocity. in other words, say to every country, please do for us what we do for you. we're going to insist on that. and then we've got various tools and weapons, maybe including tariffs in some cases, to enforce that. but the goal should be you do for us what we do for you. mexico and canada can do that. that shouldn't be a problem. the trade deficit is not the right indicator with mexico and canada, and we've got -- we produce nearly 24% of all the money in the world in the united states. mexico produces about 1%. so they spend 25% of their money buying stuff from us and we spend one-fifth of one percent buying stuff from them. let's don't focus on the trade deficit. let's don't start with tariffs. let's say for other countries do for us what we do for you and go country by country and enforce that. that would be consistent with all the other accomplishments that have happened in the last

18 months. that would be consistent with the lower taxes and the fewer regulations and the other actions that have increased the best economy in the last 18 years. and it's my hope that i can become more persuasive on that. article 1, section 8, gives congress the specific right to deal with that, and i hope that we do. mr. president, if i may say one more thing about the vote that we will be having at 12:30, today the senate is finally voting to confirm ken marcus, a well-qualified nominee to serve as assistant secretary for civil rights at the department of education. i worked to get a time agreement for this vote because mr. marcus did not deserve to be the subject to the democrats' unreasonable and unnecessary obstructions and delays. one senator can do that or two senators. i want to thank senator murray from washington and the democratic leader, senator schumer, for helping to bring these delays to a conclusion

today. for example, mr. marcus was nominated on october 30, 2017, 220 days ago. haoesz been pending on the floor since our committee approved his nomination on january 18, 140 days ago. to compare, president obama's two nominees to these position russell ali and katherine layman were confirmed in 45 and 52 days and both were confirmed by a voice vote. that doesn't mean every republican supported these nominees, but it meant we knew students would be better served when the department of education had someone in place even if republicans might disagree with that person. i would remind my colleagues that when president obama proposed to have john king serve as acting secretary of education for a year, i went to him and said mr. president, the country is better served and we're better served if you send the nomination up and let us confirm mr. king, even though we disagree with him.

and the president tk-z, did that and i made sure he was confirmed within a month. that's what should happen when a president makes nominations. so it's time to confirm mr. marcus, give secretary devos and our countryn assistan secretary for civil rights. mr. marcus has a deep understanding of civil rights law. he founded the louie brandeis center for human rights under law, served as staff director for the u.s. commission on civil rights for four years, has effectively served in this position before when he worked in the department of education under president george w. bush. he was delegated the authority of assistant secretary for civil rights. in that position he was in charge of enforcing civil rights laws such as title 9 reminding schools of their obligations, established a regulation to have in place title 9 coordinators and procedures when there was an alleged title 9 vials. he enjoys wide support. 68 organizations signed letters supporting his nomination

including hilal international, the largest jewish campus organization in the world which had this to say, mr. marcus, quote, has been a long time champion for civil rights and for college students. we have worked personally with him on several campuses across the country in response to specific issues of bigotry and discrimination and we have found him to be extremely skilled and knowledgeable in civil rights laws. unquote. the assistant secretary for civil rights, mr. marcus will lead a very important office, the office of civil rights has the responsibility of ensuring that title 9 and other civil rights laws and the protections they provide to all students are fully enforced. when mr. marcus is confirmed he'll get to work enforcing those laws so that all students feel safe at school. so i'm glad we're having this vote today, madam president. i support the nomination, and i urge my colleagues to support mr. marcus as well. i thank the chair and i yield

the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: madam president, thanks for the recognition. i want to speak briefly about the national defense authorization act, which is our topic of business soon, and i want to compliment the armed services committee for their diligence in their efforts to authorize appropriations for armed forces in a very thoughtful and deliberative manner. i have submitted several amendments. i want to talk about a particular one to that underlying bill. i want to visit in a moment the amendment number 2269 which is cosponsored by the senior senator from kansas, senator roberts, as well as senator gillibrand from new york and the democratic leader, senator schumer of new york. our amendment takes the same approach that the committee takes by addressing the army's

internal process on force structure. to thoughtfully deliberate how and where the army makes smart investments which include the stationing decisions of soldiers and families that have consequence not only ons those soldiers and families but also on the cost of defending our country for decades to come. both the department of defense and the army fortunately are experiencing much-needed period of time in which there is growth, opportunities for us to spend additional dollars to defend our nation. our armed forces are modernizing and increasing their readiness and lethality to be in a position to better deter, confront and defeat potential adversaries in a security environment more complex, more difficult, more volatile than probably any time in our country's history, certainly within recent time. during this moment of growth, the army ought not miss the

opportunity to conduct due diligence in all of their decisions and invest wisely to pay down the cost in the future. the army is focusing on reform and seeking to maximize the value of every dollar, to operate transparently, and to appropriately use the resources that the congress has entrusted with them. they are taxpayer dollars. with this focus on reform and transparency and on using every dollar wisely, this amendment, number 2269 helps the army maximize the value of every dollar, operate transparently with congress and appropriately use the resources entrusted to them. i've been working with army staff and senior leadership since february of this year to better understand their process, and i thank them for their efforts and the straightforward conversations that we had during this process. based upon our conversations and testimony, my amendment codifies the transparency they are

seeking and updates the army's stationing process that will better ensure the army is making wiser decisions, more cost-effective decisions, and are making decisions that are beneficial in the long term. stationing decisions are long-term decisions. they will impact the army for many, many years to come. if we have learned anything from recent budget cycles, as the commandant of the marine corps, general neller said in testimony before the defense appropriations subcommittee, he said this many times is the only certainty is uncertainty. the army has the benefit of a growing budget right now but in future years there will surely be periods of fiscal stress and uncertainty where smart investments today will be paid forward. our intent with the amendment is to support the army in making decisions based on fair, open, and comprehensive data,

particularly long-term factors, cost factors in particular, that will help the army save dollars in future out years. those savings can be paid -- those savings can be put where they are desperately needed, toward training, supporting our soldiers and their families, sustaining our weapons and increasing the army's readiness and lethality. i appreciate the help i've had from the armed services committee and i appreciate the chairman, senator mccain and his staff, and i appreciate very much my colleague from oklahoma, senator inhofe, in his efforts in this regard. i appreciate their interest in my amendment. i'll be happy to respond to any questions that my colleagues may have on the merits of this amendment. i thank the president and yield the floor. and would yield the floor.

mr. cornyn: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: madam president, i thank my friend from kansas. i want to talk a little bit about the hearing i chaired yesterday on the senate judiciary subcommittee on immigration, a hearing that was called student visa integrity, protecting educational opportunity and national security. the point of the hearing was to raise awareness about a very serious issue and to hear from the federal agencies responsible for our national security as well as visa policy and vetting of foreign nationals studying in the united states. we hope to shed light on policies and procedures that are in place, what should be in place but which is not, and to address what has become a growing source of concern. that is foreign countries taking advantage of their international students studying in the united states and turning them into intelligence assets or otherwise

using them to gain information that will help other countries grow their economy and their military in a way that undermines u.s. leadership in both of those areas. the issue relates primarily, though, to china's aggressive plan to surpass the united states on all fronts, militarily, economically and technologically and to do so by whatever means necessary. we already know that china is perhaps the number-one abuser of cyberspace, to steal intellectual property and to use h that to build, to advance its economy or its military. they have been very public about their ultimate goal. that is to use whatever means they need in order to advance their economy or their military. and it's important to remember

that china is not a democracy like ours. china is a communist country guided by a doctrine that does not recognize the human rights or the individual rights that we take for granted here in the united states and other democracies. but they made it very clear what they intend to do. for example, in their made in china 2025 strategy, this is something that's been published, and you can read it yourself. china is accelerating its efforts to acquire u.s. intellectual property and sensitive research. and that's where our universities in particular come in. we spend billions of dollars, i think it's $178 billion in the omnibus appropriations bill alone, federal tax dollars given to universities to conduct research to benefit the american people and hopefully all of

humaind. some of that research is sensitive because it's classified research. and we had, for example, the head of security at texas a&m university systems talk about the steps they've taken to prevent that from prying eyes because of the sensitivity of some of that research. so universities are ground zero in this threat. this last february, the f.b.i. director christopher wray testified before the senate intelligence committee in an open hearing about the security risk posed by certain chinese students, visiting scientists and scholars at american colleges and universities. his remarks were brief. and because of the sensitive and classified aspects of some part of what he said, he couldn't provide the full context and breadth in that open setting.

but what he did say publicly was alarming. he said the f.b.i. is watching warily and that naivete was exacerbating the problem. what i think he meant by that was people were simply unaware and thus unprepared for what was happening. and he also made very clear that the chinese government was intent on doing whatever it needed to do, whether it's placing intelligence officers or other agents for the chinese government on campuses to get the information that they want. madam president, we are fortunate to have the world's top universities and colleges, and they're known for their open research which fosters collaboration and innovation across a broad array of industry sectors and academic

disciplines. it's one of the crown jewels of our country, our colleges and universities and the research they do. but our openness is also a vulnerability when being exploited by other countries for their own purposes. what's happening now, director ray says is that foreign actors are using to acquire sensitive information to the detriment of u.s. national are security and that's primarily what we're talking about here. it's not an isolated problem. director ray said that the federal bureau of investigation is actively monitoring universities in all of its 56 field offices across the country, not just in major cities. nearly all students and visiting scholars come for a legitimate reason. that's a given. we're not talking about

everybody, we're talking about the isolated few, but the danger still remains. most are here to experience our culture and contribute their talents to america. i tend to think our colleges and universities are the best element of our soft powers a nation. when people come here and learn more about us and where we share values and perhaps take those values back to their home country and serve as somebody we can talk to and work with in the future, it promotes world peace, it promotes mutual understanding, and like i said, i think it's one of the most important elements of our soft power as a country. so i'm not here suggesting that we ought to conflate chinese party influence on all students and academics, far from it. students from across the world are certainly welcomed. we welcome them with open arms

to come study at our colleges and universities, and i encourage them to explore the opportunity to do so. what yesterday's hearing was about was not about them but a small subset, people we should be concerned about. security risks, those here to exploit our intellectual property and national security and economic advantages. people who don't respect the rule of law as we do when it comes to intellectual property rights. as the f.b.i. director said, we can't be naive. this theft is occurring, it's been well documented, and we've got to take the necessary preventive measures to ensure that it doesn't continue. by the way, i mentioned one country, china, but certainly these concerns are not limited to china. there's more than 5,000 russian students visiting -- studying in the united states. there's other countries,

including state sponsors of terrorism like iran who have foreign students here actively working to steal u.s. technology and bypass expensive research and development and exploit the visa student program to gain information that will benefit their countries. i would just pause for a moment to say we spend untold amounts of money in this country, taxpayers' hard-earned money, to research and develop the new, most innovative products. that's true in the military sector and the nonmilitary sector. when the american taxpayer pays to produce the necessary weapons and necessary infrastructure to protect us and our security and other countries are actively trying to steal it and don't have to pay that research and development cost, we can see the obvious problem. but yesterday's hearing exposed

a bigger problem, and that's the issue of competing global visions. communist china makes no secret of the fact that karl marx is, in effect, their national hero. there was a week-long celebration in china just last month which included a mandatory study session led by president chi of marx's communist manifesto. works like this show that while china is a rival, it could in some ways be a sheep in wolf's clothing when it comes to its most aggressive tactics. when it tries to present itself as a westernizing economy and a friend of the global community of nations, china conveniently ignoring facts about its all thive -- alternative development model and the fact that it respects no law in pursuit of

those policies. it also disguises it's geo political games to we are write the world of world -- the rules of world order and recreate them in their own image. whether it's their belligerence in places like the south china sea, it's crushing internal political dissent and its population controls, like the one-child policy, which i understand has now been relaxed, but parents are not free to have all the children that they want. it's controlled by the government. you have to ask the government's permission. china has repeatedly shown itself as a power-hungry authoritarian country willing to violate the rights of its own people in dismiss -- and dismissive and contentious of international laws and

international laws. let's not deceive ourselves into believing otherwise, that's what director ray calls being naive. let's not be naive. let's be wary when china tries to blend in internationally, that its rosy rhetoric is often camouflage for its true and more troubling aims. now we know there are high-level negotiations between the united states and the chinese government on the issue of trade, and that's a good thing. madam president, how much time do i have remaining? the presiding officer: no time remaining to the minority. -- to the majority. excuse me. mr. cornyn: madam president, i would like to ask unanimous consent for one minute to wrap-up. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection.

madam president, i joined a number of other senators -- 27 senators -- to talk about ongoing trade negotiations with china. the main point of the letter was to emphasize there's no question that china is actively seeking to surpass the united states mecly and militarily. it is -- military -- economically and militarily. when it comes to china, national security isn't just a pretext for economic protectionism. it should not be. i, like many of my colleagues, believe strongly in free trade and we shouldn't use national security as a pretext for economic protection, but the national security concerns are, indeed, real. for example, in the z.t.e. matter, which is -- is a subject of some debate, as it should be, and discussion here in the congress following the

negotiation by secretary ross of a deal that he is proposing. for those of us who serve on the intelligence committee and on the armed services committee, i assure you that the threat china poses is real and that dangers are already -- dangers we worry about are already taking affect. our inaction can only have negative consequences, and we need to aim to prevent any future negative consequences to our country. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, i come to the floor today to speak on the nomination of kenneth marcus to lead the department of education office's for civil rights, the nomination we will vote on in just a few moments. i am pleased that president trump and secretary ddevos moved away from their -- i believe

candice jackson is unfit and should be removed. and not because of the callous, insensitive and egregious comments she made regarding sexual assault on college campuses, but also because of the way she worked to narrow the role of this office and moved away from protecting transgender students and to protect our students and move it away from its core mission. as i said before, i'm very glad president trump and secretary devos nominated someone else to replace ms. jackson. secondly, madam president, i want to thank this nominee, kevin marcus, for his service and his clear commitment for the goal of halting discrimination on college campuses, which is an issue the o.c.r. will face with hateful violence occurring on our campuses and in schools. madam president, i respect mr. marcus' commitment, but

right now in this administration, it's not enough. we are a bit more than 500 days into president trump's term, and when it comes to his record and rhetoric on civil rights, i haven't been surprised once. i want to start with his rhetoric. this is a president who kicked off his campaign by calling mexicans criminals, who called for a ban on all muslims coming to america, who openly ridiculed a journalist with a disability, who has openly demeaned women, who defended white supremacists in charlottesville by saying there were, quote, many fine people among them, who compared immigrants to animals, and referred to entire countries with an expletive i won't repeat on the senate floor. i could go on. it goes beyond his hateful rhetoric. president trump has tried to implement that muslim ban. he rolled back guidance on

enforcing gender student rights, he revoked tied nine guidance that brings perpetrators to justice. he has pushed his administration to engage in appalling behavior at our border, separating kids from their families. and that list goes on. madam president, i feel very confident in saying when it comes to civil rights, when it comes to the rights and safety of women, of people of color, of lgbtq people and people with disabilities, this president has purposely fanned the flames of racism, ableism, bigotry, and sexism in ways we have not een in -- seen in a generation. anyone who cares about civil rights in america should be able to point that out. so, madam president, that is why i was so disappointed that president trump's nominee to lead the department of education's office of civil

rights could not answer one of my questions at his hearing. when i asked mr. marcus to name a single example of something president trump has said or done when it comes to discrimination or women's rights or civil rights that he disagrees with, he couldn't say one, not a single example, and that's all i was looking for. madam president, he could have talked about how president trump has stoked hatred and division of muslims and latinos. he could have talked about how president trump downplayed hate crimes against minority communities here in america. maybe he could have said he disagreewithhat. he could have talked about how president trump nominated jeff sessions to ld his justice department, someone with a record of opposing civil rights protections. he could have talked about how president trump named someone hostile to lgbtq to lead the

civil rights office in the department of health and human services. he could have talked about any of the ways that president trump has tried to weaken and has actually weakened the office mr. maybe he dis' greed with that. madam president, unfortunately in this administration there's almost no end to the options mrm this simple question, but, madam president, we do not know where he stands because he wouldn't name a single thing, not one. he, quote, i really couldn't say, senator. that was his response to my question. madam president, there are reasons to oppose this nomination, but for me this nonresponse to what should be an easy question was enough for me. we have got to have someone in this position who is not only able to say he disagrees with president trump when it comes to civil rights, we need someone who's prepared to stand up to him. we need someone who is not only able to say they stand on the side of civil rights in the face of constant attacks, we need

someone who is actually willing to disagree with their bosses. president trump and secretary devos when civil rights are being threatened. mr. president, mr. marcus could not commit to me he was doing either and that is something i cannot support. i will be opposing this nomination and i encourage my colleagues to do the same. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from washington.

mrs. murray: i ask that the quorum call be lifted are. the presiding officer: without objection. the presiding officer: all time is yielded back. the question occurs on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

vote:

vote k4r vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 50, the nays are 46. the nays are 46. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. mr. inhofe: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask consent that the senate resume legislative sense and resume consideration of the motion to proceed to h.r. 5515, further that the motion be agreed to and senator inhofe, myself, or a designee be recognized to offer a substitute amendment number 2282, which is the text of the senate-reported bill. i further ask that it be in order for senator boozman or his designee to call up amendment number 2276, senator reed or his designee to call up amendment 2248 understand that the amendments be debated concurrently with the time equally divided until 2:00 p.m. finally, that at 2:00 p.m., the senate vote in relation to the bozeman and reed amendments in the order listed with no second-degree amendments in order to the amendments prior to the votes. the presiding officer: is there objection?

mr. paul: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: reserving the right to object, two bedrocks of american jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence and the right to a trial by jury. i have one amendment that i would ask unanimous consent be included in this bill. this amendment would ensure that no american is ever held indefinitely in prison without a trial by jury. i can't imagine why we can't have this. one republican senator has been blocking this for six years, so i object to this unanimous consent and ask, mr. president, unanimous consent -- the presiding officer: your objection is heard. mr. paul: and i ask you, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that we allow my amendment to be heard and voted upon in the upcoming bill. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma has the floor. mr. inhofe: reese reserving the right to object, first of all, i agree with your amendment. and i have agreed with your amendment and made it very clear for a long period of time.

procedurally, i want to get to it. it's my intention that we'll have a vote on it. but that would have to come after we are on the vote -- on the bill. and we need to get on the the bill first. so i do object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. inhofe: now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate resume legislative session and resume consideration of the motion to proceed to h.r. 5515. i further ask that notwithstanding rule 22, the senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to h.r. 5515 at 1:15 p.m. today. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report the motion to proceed. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 442, h.r. 5515, an act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2019 for military activities of the department of defense and so

forth and for other purposes. mr. inhofe: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mrs. fischer: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mrs. fischer: thank you, mr. president. i would ask that the quorum call be vitiated, please. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. fischer: thank you it. i rise today to continue nigh contribute to nebraska's heroes and the current generation of men and women who have given their lives defending our freedom in iraq and afghanistan. each of these nebraskans has a powerful story of answering the call to serve. today i would like to honor the life of nebraska army national guard sergeant first class trisha jamison. tricia grew up in st. paul, a small town in central nebraska's farm country. she had a love for animals and wanted to pursue a career as a veterinarian. trisha usually kept to herself and was not outspoken, but she displayed great determination when something was important to

her. in elementary school, upon learning that she and other young girls could not play organized softball, she started a letter-writing campaign to change the rules. the community soon took notice and revised the policy to include girls her age. when her friend took his own life because he was picked on at school, trisha again took up her pen and wrote a letter that was published in a local newspaper where she condemned bullying and honored the life of her friend. she advocated for what is right and how others should be treated. looking back, it seems obvious that herselfless spirit would one day lead her to serve her country. tricia attended st. paul high school, where she was a determined athlete. she participated in volleyball, setting athletic records that

still stand to this day. her family then moved to omaha and she spent her senior year at millard south high school, graduating in 1989. like many young people, tricia saw the benefits of joining the national guard as it could provide extra income and help her with her college tuition. she joined in 1994. it didn't talk long before -- it didn't take long before her grit and determination caught the item of her superiors. they rewarded hadder with a promotion to become a full-time training instructor at camp ashland. as combat-intense fighting in iraq and afghanistan, so, too, did the need to improve battlefield medical knowledge. sergeant jamison was assigned to improve the combat life-saver course.

the course teaches soldiers basic medical skills for application on the battlefield. with the same dogged determination that was evident all throughout her life, sergeant jailson raised the program into a world-class operation. hundreds of soldiers who learned from tricia in that program would go on to save lives on battlefields across the world. in 2005, nebraska's 313th medical company needed to replace two soldiers, so it reached back to nebraska for volunteers. and when her country called for her service, sergeant jameson eagerly stepped forward. she quickly got her personal affairs in order and was sent to her deployment training. by june of 2005, she was in iraq on duty with the 313th medical company at camp speicher.

her impact was felt immediately, as the camp was stretched thin to support combat operations in northern and western iraq. staff sergeant jameson's first mission on the proceed -- on the road was a long one. she was the vehicle commander of the m-997 ambulance that was headed to tribile near the border. she and her battle buddy specialist michelle spores had just left with a convoy when an urgent call came to help marines injured in combat a few miles away. without hesitation, tricia was speeding towards the battlefield to attend the fallen when their field ambulance was struck by an i.e.d. that day tricia gave her life while serve her country. the nebraska prairie soldier newspaper wrote of her service,

"hundreds of family friends, veteran group members, state governmental leaders and unilateral ford coworkers flooded into st. bridget catholic church in omaha to help lay a fallen hero to rest. her name and reputation live on as soldiers save lives, just as she did on the battlefield. for her service to our nation, sergeant first class tricia jameson earned many military decorations including the purple heart and bronze star posthumously. today i ask that we take a minute to remember tricia for herselfless spirit. i want to thank her family, her mother, pat, and her brother, rob, who share their own heroic burden. sergeant first class tricia jameson loved her family. she embodied the pride of her

state and the values of her nation. i am honored to tell her story. thank you, mr. president. i yield. i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa.

mr. grassley: i ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that we vote right now. the presiding officer: is there objection? there is not. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 442, h.r. 5515, an act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2019 for military activities of the department of defense and so forth and for other purposes signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed to h.r. 5515, an act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2019 for military activities of the department of defense for military construction, and for

defense activities of the department of energy, to prescribe military personnel strengthst for fiscal year and other purposes shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: