information appears in the budget sent to congress, the executive branch can immediately begin using prior year's moneys subject to reprogramming guidelines approved by the four defense committees and not the senate to begin work on a low-yield nuclear weapon. i think it's important to note this. under the present language in the bill before us, it's the secretary of energy who could, at the request of the white house -- indeed conceivably, not likely but conceivably, even over the objections of the secretary of defense, propose that we -- in his budget, that we begin to develop a new nuclear device. simply submitting that budget would authorize them to begin reprogramming funds which would be approved at best by a handful of senators. that is not the kind of consideration that we must apply to develop a new newspaper.

it is a role of the senate -- the role of the senate, all of us, to stand up and to state where we believe this country should be headed. mr. president, the threat and power of nuclear weapons has not changed. in fact, in the complex and unstable times of present day with more states seeking nuclear weapons, i think it is imperative that congress be more involved, not less, in the development and deployment of our country's nuclear arsenal. therefore, my amendment simply puts congress back in the loop, restoring the oversight put in place by the john warner amendment in 2003. it is our fundamental duty to review, authorize, and appropriate, if necessary, the programs that the executive branch will execute. i would contend that this is especially true given the nature of nuclear weapons and the capability for destruction. some may agree with the need for new or modified or low-yield weapon, and some may not, but

everyone in congress should have a say on the issue. my amendment simply ensures that congress has evolved every step -- is involved every step of the way in the development of any new or modified nuclear weapon. i believe it is critical considering the awesome destructive powers of this weapon. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment so that we can continue to exercise appropriate guidance on an issue that is existential to the survival not only of the country but of the world. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor.

mr. flake: mr. president, the events of the past week, the baffling, inexplicable attacks on our closest allies by the administration one day and the appalling praise for perhaps the

most brutal dictator on earth the next. these events are not normal. this behavior is not normal. these upside down values are not normal. these actions mistake disruption for dynamism, empty bravado for bold displays of leadership. these actions are not serious or sober. they represent the opposite of statecraft and the implications of such thoughtlessness for america's allies and the world could be alsoing and grave. the president is in many ways a steward of america's foreign policy, shaping it during their time, yes, but also understanding that it is based on relationships and norms that have existed since long before they took office and will continue to exist long after they exit the political stage.

over the past several months, i have spoken of our abandonment of the international rules-based order that we took the lead in establishing. i have spoken of the profound implications of this abandonment, what it means to our economy, to national security, to our relations throughout the world. this administration's dangerous dance with protectionism and its unwarranted besmirching of our allies like canada are illustrative of precisely the kind of harmful implications i fear -- i feared would become reality. this is not a matter of one instance of a poor word choice or a single moment of absent mindedness. this attitude of contempt for those nations who share our values and respect for those who do not has been a common thread throughout the administration's actions over the past 18 months. it is disturbing when the

american president and his administration are going about -- going on about the, quote, great personality, unquote, of the murderous dictator kim jong-un. or how kim loves his country very much. while at the same time calling the canadian prime minister obnoxious, weak, and dishonest for merely pushing back on proposed tariffs, or declaring that the european union is, quote, solidly against the united states when it comes to trade policy. consistently ridiculing our allies by suggesting that they are somehow abusing us while voicing admiration for despots and dictators represents a fundamental departure in behavior for american administrations. it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of our relationship with our allies. now, it is understandable that we will have disagreements with our allies, but that does not

justice offend upending the international framework painstakingly constructed and cultivated by previous generations of leaders. issues that we have with allies ought to be addressed through constructive dialogue, not bell a coast -- bill bellicose taunts or tweets. such behavior is destructive to the nature of global leadership this nation holds. it projects to the world not american values but some sort of creepy nihilism. mr. president, i am astonished to use that word, nihilism, to describe the actions of any administration, of any party, much less my own. but it is our obligation to call what is happening by its name. when we read this week in "the atlantic" quoting a senior white

house official saying the ultimate goal of the administration is to destroy the international order so that america will as a matter of policy have no friends, no enemies, then nihilism is the only word for it. if i may echo the sentiments of our absent colleague, senator mccain, i'd like to make clear to our allies from the senate floor that a bipartisan majority of americans stand with you. we stand in favor of the principles of free trade which have brought about unprecedented prosperity around the world. we stand in favor of preserving alliances based on 70 years of shared values which have helped secure equally unprecedented peace and comity among nations. as senator mccain plainly stated, americans stand with you. attacking our friends is not who we are as a nation. it is not responsible diplomacy. it is not helpful to our goals

as a nation. it cannot become the norm. but i fear it is becoming the norm, mr. president. that is devastateing, and it is a reality which we must face in this chamber. we continue to act here as if all is normal, as if all parties are observing norms even as the executive branch shatters them, robustly trafficking in conspiracy theories and attacking all institutions that don't pay the president obeisance. our justice system, the free press, the list is getting longer. but this institution, the article 1 branch of our government, is not an accessory to the executive branch, and we demean ourselves and our proper constitutional role when we act like we work for the president, that we are only here to do his bidding, especially now.

and so, mr. president, with the time i have left in this chamber, i will continue to speak out, and i would invite my colleagues who are disturbed by the recent treatment of our allies to do the same, but as vital as i feel it is to speak out for the record and for history, it is clear that in the face of such an unprecedented situation, words are not enough. mr. madison's doctrine of the separation of powers tells us that it is our obligation to act. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, we will be voting on the national defense authorization act soon, which enjoys a storied history here in the congress.

57 consecutive years we have passed the national defense authorization act in order to support and equip our military. earlier this month, the senate armed services committee voted overwhelmingly 25-2 to advance this important legislation to the floor. there are 1.8 million americans around the world on active duty, according to the department of defense. the united states has 737 military installations worldwide. and the department of defense is the world's largest employer. supporting all of these people and these facilities is a herculean task, and the defense authorization bill is one very important way that we do that. it's how we make sure that the men and women in uniform are paid, our alliances are strengthened and that military facilities are properly

modernized and maintained. this bill we will be voting on will support a total, it's an authorization, $716 billion for these tasks. i know occasionally people ask isn't that too high a price to pay? $716 billion is unquestionably a lot of money. but the simple fact of the matter is there is no one who shares our values who can step in and fill the void left by an absence of american leadership. it is american leadership that keeps the world stable, or at least as stable as it is, that helps keep the peace and helps fight the scourge of things like terrorism. so there is no substitute for the united states of america. there are countries that i'll talk about in a moment like china that wouldn't to surpass us both economically and militarily, but it's important for our very way of life and for

peace in the world that the united states continue to live up to its responsibilities to lead when it comes to national security. in my home state, there are roughly 200,000 men and women stationed at places like fort hood, joint base san antonio, the red river army depot in ellington field. these are the people i think of each year as we take up and pass the defense authorization bill. they rely on us to supply them what they need in order to do the tasks that they have volunteered to do. one thing this bill will do -- and it sounds very modest -- it will provide a 2.6% pay increase, the largest in nearly ten years for our uniformed military. given the state of today's world, maintaining our military readiness has never been more important or more difficult. the array of national security threats facing the world is more complex and diverse than at any

time since world war ii. our leaders say that the strategic environment has not been this competitive since the end of the cold war. simply put, america no longer enjoys a comparative advantage that it once had over its competitors and its adversaries. secretary of defense mattis and the department of defense have admirably crafted the national defense strategy that was delivered to congress earlier this year. this was a critical first step for the administration to lay out its strategy, but now that strategy must be implemented, and the defense authorization bill will align our policies and resources in a way that will accomplish that. this legislation will modernize the military's rigid outdated personnel management system to increase the adaptability of the force, to increase its lethality, where necessary, invest in emerging technologies

to ensure our troops have what they need in order to be successful, and reform the department of defense to empower strong civilian leadership. i'm glad that there are two pieces of this bill which are included that i want to highlight in particular. the first is called the children of military protection act. this will close the jurisdictional loophole affecting military installations where minors commit criminal offenses on base. this issue is brought to my attention by an army jag officer, a lawyer, who was concerned that juvenile sexual assault cases were falling through the cracks when the federal government chose not to prosecute because naturally this would end up in the juries deduction of -- jurisdiction of u.s. attorneys and the federal courts, and certainly their plate is full. this is a particular problem, though, at fort hood in central texas. this legislation will allow the

federal prosecutors direct -- allow the state to step up and prosecute these cases, allowing state-level authorities to take up the case when the federal government's other responsibilities and fine night resources -- fine night resource -- finite resources prevent it from doing so. this is a bipartisan priority that members on both sides of the aisle should rally behind. our children who live on military bases must be protected at all costs. and when they're sexually assaulted, their juvenile assailants should not escape justice because of the constraints of the status quo. the second piece of legislation i've introduced and i'm pleased has been included in the ndaa, the defense authorization bill, involves how we address future threats to our national security. i've spoken quite a bit about china recently. my friend from maine who serves on the intelligence committee as do i, we hear quite often about the challenges confronting us

from our rival in china. but that country bears mention again right now because of its connection with the defense authorization bill. the chairman of the house armed services committee, chairman thornberry has recently said in the indo-pacific where the united states faces a near-term belligerent threat armed with nuclear weapons and also a longer strategic competitor, he's described that as being a threat to the united states in the indo-pacific region where we face a near-term belligerent threat armed with nuclear weapons -- that would be north korea -- along with a long-term strategic competitor. that would be china that chairman thornberry is referring to. that's why this year's defense authorization bill, among other goals prioritizes readiness in the region and strengthens our key partnerships. it promotes stability and security in the indo-pacific region through exercises with

our allies and it maintains our policy of maximum pressure on north korea as we seek to negotiate the denuclearization of the north korean peninsula. but another main provision in this legislation that has to do with the indo-pacific region in particular that i've cosponsored along with senator feinstein, the senior senator from california, is known as the foreign investment risk review modernization act, or firrma t. will allow us to better intercept threats to our national security posed by china when its companies masquerade as normal corporate actors. but it's been well documented that china is intent upon stealing, not only stealing our intellectual property but also acquiring the know-how to build dual-use technology in china and, thus, undermine our industrial base here in the united states. and they do so by evading

current law, by mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures. this legislation will modernize the review process led by the secretary of treasury to make sure that foreign investments in the united states protect our national security. this is not intended to discourage foreign investment. foreign investment is a good thing. but when countries have an explicit strategy to try to acquire cutting-edge technology that has military applications, it obviously is a concern to our national security. but as i've said earlier, the defense authorization bill is important for many reasons that hit closer to home. for example, in texas, this bill is traditionally authorized needed improvements in texas military facilities. we have an all-volunteer military. that means we have to not discourage people from entering the military or being retained in the military.

and one of the ways we do that is by making sure we maintain improvements at our facilities as well as provide updated aircraft, ships, and ground vehicles. all of these have texas implications, too. so when i vote yes on the defense authorization bill soon, i'll be thinking of these service members, my constituents back home who proudly wear the uniform of the united states military. as well as all of those troops stationed overseas. so i'd encourage all of our colleagues to let's make sure we get this ndaa, the defense authorization bill, across the finish line as soon as possible. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. mr. king: i want to commend the senator from texas for his leadership both on the juvenile justice provision of the national defense act and also very importantly on the foreign investment. we often hear around here

testimony about all of government efforts. what we're facing is an all of society effort from some of our competitor, principally china, so their private sector and public sector are sometimes indistinguishable when it comes to assets. that's why the senator from texas has taken the lead on and has included as an amendment in the national defense authorization act is vitally important to national security. and i just want to thank the senator for his leadership on a very important issue and commend the work of the committee and including it in the bill. like the senator, i look forward to supporting this bill. i think it's important on many levels. but since the senator is on the floor, i wted toommend him for his leadership on these issues. mr. president, i come today to talk about a regulatory issue, and it's easy -- it would be

easy to joke about it. and i will probably not be able to resist a few puns along the way. but it is very serious. the food and drug administration sl reviewing food -- is reviewing food labels. they want to make them more understandable. they want to make them more informative to people when they're purchasing food in the grocery store. they've increased the font size on the calorie serving size, number of servings in a container. this all makes sense. but there is a place where the proposed rule of the f.d.a. goes off the rails, if you will, and that involves maple syrup and honey, which the agency is suggesting should have on its label added sugar. well, maple syrup and honey essentially are sugar. and in pure maple syrup and pure honey which we produce in our state and other states in the

northern tier, nothing's added. and to add the phrase "added sugar" to maple sugar, to maple syrup and maple sugar makes no sense and is, indeed, confusing to the consumer. because if you read a label and it's maple syrup and it says added sugar, your natural assumption is someone put more sugar in there. that's what you would take from that. indeed, that's what this label requirement which has been proposed would do. and it would actually undermine the good work that's been done by the maple syrup industry and the honey industry, honey business over the years, to explain to consumers the difference between pure honey, pure mabel seer -- maple syrup and other products which have things in them and may have sugar added. this is where maple syrup comes from. this is a maple tree. the farmer is tapping it. these tubes all lead to a maple

house. making maple syrup is not easy. it takes 40 gallons of sap to make one gallon of syrup. that's why we call it liquid gold. it's a wonderful product. it's a pure product. and there's nothing that's added between the tree and the jar that you buy in your grocery store, if, indeed, it is real maple syrup. nothing is added. last week i visited a wonderful guy in maine who's known as the bee whisperer. and he or rather his bees make honey. and we were out in his back field where the hives are. i said how many bees are out there? he looked and sort of scratched his head and said about three million. bees are in the hives in this backyard, back field of this -- of the honey whisperer up in maine, the bee whisperer, rather. and then the honey comes in in

the combs. they scrape the wax off the top created by the bees, by the way, a totally natural product. it comes out in a jar. this is pure honey. to add to this label sugar added makes no sense because it's not. nothing is added except what the bees produce. so this is a case where i think what we are talking about is a well meaning or attempt on the part of this agency, the f.d.a., to inform consumers but in the process, what they're really doing is misinforming them. honey comes from the bee to the jar. nothing in between. maple syrup comes from the tree to the jar. nothing in between. nothing is added. the only thing that's added by this proposed regulation is confusion. and confusion is the whole thing

we're trying to avoid here. we're not adding sugar. sugar isn't added to maple syrup and to honey. if you put added sugar on the label, it will make the consumer think this isn't a pure product and it will undo 50 years of effort to make the public understand the difference between a pure maple syrup and pure honey and something that is -- may indeed have some added ingredients. mary anneny, by the way, mary anne's husband is the guy pping the tree i showed you a minute ago. she's a state legislator in maine and is also a maple producer. she's in washington this week spreading the word about this issue. and i just want to add my voice to it because this would have a significant impact on these industries nationwide. and these are important businesses. in maine maple syrup is a $20 million a year business. now, i have to admit that one day years ago when i was the governor of maine, we used to

tap a maple tree in the front yard of the governor's residence every year. and so it was a ceremonial event. the press was there. i went out one year to tap that tee, nailed one of these guys into the tree and then the sap drips out into the bucket. the bucket is then -- this is the old fashion way. the new way is what i showed you before, where the tubes run right to the sugar house. the pes was there. they said governor, what do you think of vermont maple syrup? i said vermont maple syrup? are you kidding? we use that in cars in maine. we don't eat that stuff. well, it started a war with the governor of vermont which we settled amicably, i might add. but maple syrup is important to us. and i think this is -- it would be a funny issue. in fact, most people when they say they're going to put added sugar on the label for maple syrup, they think it's kind of funny. it's not funny to the industry.

i can't resist, mr. president, i'm hoping for a sweet ending to a sticky mess. and that the f.d.a. this week will do the right thing. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. rounds: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from from south dakota. mr. rounds: thank you, mr. president. as a member of the senate armed services committee, i am pleased that we as a committee have once again come together in a bipartisan fashion to advance the national defense authorization act, or ndaa, which i believe is a vital piece of legislation for our national security. i thank the chairman and ranking members in both the house and the senate for their leadership, senator inhofe and the members on both sides of the aisle who have continued to work together on this very important defense bill. congress as an institution continues to come together each year to show our troops and their families that they have our full support. the federal government's number-one responsibility is to provide for the defense of our nation. this year's ndaa, the john s.

mccain national defense authorization act, honors our chairman who has dedicated his life to serving our country. few people are more passionate about our troops and our military readiness than chairman mccain and the courage he has exhibited during his years of service and in his current battle has inspired all of us. i'm pleased we were able to put together legislation bearing his name that i would abouts on last year's efforts to provide adequate tools so our forces can fully rebuild our military and adequately address the challenges which they face. but the most important capability we have is our people, the men and the women in uniform who defend our nation and the families who give them the strength to do so. that's why i'm pleased this year 's ndaa includes a 2.6% pay raise for our troops. we are also for the that the that the leader of our -- we are

also fortunate that the leader of our armed forces, james mattis has gaven us a strategy. this strategy focuses on the central challenge facing our nation, the reemergence of long term strategic competition with our near-peer competitors such as russia and china. it is our duty to provide secretary mattis and all of our troops with the tools they need to execute the strategy. the world is more dangerous than at any time since the cold war era. china and russia are both strategic competitors. great uncertainty still remains on the korean peninsula. iran continues to threaten middle eastern stability and our forces remain in combat in

afghanistan and conducting counterterrorism in multiple areas of operation. our superiority in maritime, air, ground, space, and cyber domains, once taken for granted, are constantly challenged by our strategic and regional competitors. even more concerning, the threat of the sequestration and repeated continuing resolutions have prevented our troops from being fully equipped to prepare and defend against that's threats. -- these threats. as a result, modernization, readiness, and sustainment have all suffered. it is our duty to provide funding stability and avoid arbitrary budget caps that constrain defense spending below that which is required to protect our nation. failure to provide adequate, stable funding disrupting funding, it impacts responsible obligation of critical funding resources, it degrades readiness and inhibits modernization.

and there have been disturbing real-world consequences. the high operational demand with an icient fleet, overbued maintenance infrastructure and an erosion of training of -- all were factors in the recent string of navy fleet inincidences. the marine corps has had its own indenses with the f-15. some of the accidents caused the loss of life. the shortage of pilots in every service is a strategic readiness concern that must be addressed. our sailors, soldiers, airmen, and marines deserve the very best in training and in equipment. this year's ndaa does that by providing a total of $716 billion in fiscal year 2019 for national defense.

voting for this vital legislation is not -- and i'll repeat, not an act of budget-busting. in fact, in 2010 we spent $714 billion, just $2 billion less than this year on national defense. but a dollar went a lot further back then. adjusted for inflation, this bill actually authorizes more than $110 billion less than in 2010 buying power. we are slowly digging ourselves out of a hole that has hollowed our armed forces. the real budget busting is being done with mandatory spending, and we don't even vote on mandatory spending. since the cold war, the stakes for failing to take decisive action have never been higher. this legislation will enable our armed forces to continue taking necessary steps to rebuild and

restore our national security. as an example, in the navy, this year's ndaa builds on last year's bill to improve ship and aviation readiness and the infrastructure necessary to support the fleet, which directly addresses a significant problem the armed services committee has examined in multiple hearings this year. significantly, it improves the navy's capacity to execute maintenance in naval shipyards by continuing to grow the workforce while investing in shipyard infrastructure, including facilities, equipment, and information technology. this increase in workforce will help the navy to meet scheduled ship maintenance, support additional ships, and reduce the backlog that has accumulated from over a decade of increased operational tempo. similar plans to restore readiness will be executed across the force as long as we honoring our commitment to invest in a complete life cycle

acquisition system. as chairman of the cybersecurity subcommittee of the senate armed services committee, i am pleased that the ndaa includes important provisions that take steps to address the serious cyber threat which our nation faces. it includes providing the secretary of defense with the authority to conduct military operations in cyberspace, developing a program to establish cyber institutes at educational institutions and investing in cyber programs in the defense industrial base. these were important steps that we can take to defend the nation in the cyber domain. i'm also glad that the bill we are considering today includes strategic measures which i offered to improve the office for personnel management and increases the capabilities of our training ranges throughout the department of defense to better support the objectives outlined in the national defense strategy. today a number of our personnel

and training systems are outdated and fail to provide our forces with the tools they need on the modern battlefield. this bill changes that. while we champion this year's bill, we must also extend our view beyond the fiscal year 2019. we must be prepared for a future while reacting to the present, especially as it relates to funding. for the past three years, i have served as a member of the senate armed services committee bearing witness to potential challenges that could threaten our national security if we do not address arbitrary budget caps placed on our defense. these arbitrary budget caps have forced the kind of false choices that are potentially so devastating for our armed forces. we must also avoid the false choice of paying for readiness while assuming risk for modernization. or vicar have s we cannot let

the pursue of the perfect modernization solution prevent us from implementing the mature technologies to address short-term capability gaps -- now, today. the bill we are considering today avoids these choices. in closing, i thank chairman mccain, ranking member preed, senator inhofe, and my other armed services committee colleagues and everyone on staff for their worken this year's ndaa -- work on this year's ndaa. i look forward toest going this bill to the president's desk in a timely manner as we continue our strong tradition of coming together on a bipartisan basis toupport our troops and their families so that can continue to keep us safe. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: mr. president, i want to begin today by

congratulating my friend, the senior senator from kentucky, senator mcconnell, on becoming the longest-serving republican leader in the history of the senate. this is an institution where somebody once wisely i think observed that there are only really two rules -- unanimous consent and total exhaustion are the way the senate has in the past reached conclusions. that would not be and is not an easy group to lead. but i think senator can mcconnell more than any other current member of the senate appreciates and understands the institution in ways that very few people do. he used the skills of understanding the uniqueness of the senate -- there's no other legislative body designed as this body was to be sure the minority is heard and to be sure that the time we take is

adequate for points of view to be put out there -- but during that time in the past year, senator mcconnell has led our conference and the senate in delivering the biggest tax overhaul in three decades, in confirming a record number of circuit court judges, overturning unnecessary regulations that were holding the economy back; and that's not easy to do. every member of the senate comes here on their own. they come here working for the people that elected them. in many ways, we have 100 independent contractors who understand their bosses -- the people they work for in the states they come from -- better than anybody else on the senate floor does. now, that's not a bad thing. that's an indication of bringing democracy to a place that has only 100 members and always has

almost 100 different points of view. so senator mcconnell has earned the confidence of his colleagues. he has led the senate in a good way. i'm proud to call him my friend. we were -- he was the senate whip when i was the majority whip in the house, and i'm grateful for the 11 years, five months, and 11 days of steady leadership he has given. now, the work of the senate, with the democrat leader and the republican leader, the majority and the minority leaders, both doing what they need to do, the work of the senate continues. this is the 57th time in -- that the senate has dealt with the national defense authorization act. it is the only bill that we pass as an authorizing bill every single year, and that's i think highly appropriate.

the number-one job of the federal government is to defend the country, and we give that issue a different level of time on the senate floor every year than we do anything else. the national security threats facing the united states today are more complex and more diverse certainly than at any time since world war ii and maybe at any time ever. the united states hasn't seen the kind of strategic competition that we see from other places. we haven't seen the diversity of opposition that democracy faces as we see today. frankly, our competitive advantage is not what it once was. our advantage on the battlefield not what it once was, still

better than anybody else but not as overwhelmingly better as we were at one time. for us to continue to be successful, we have to maintain that military advantage. we have to counter our potential adversaries. as senator rounds just mentioned, we have to look at the new potential of cyber warfare, being sure that our cyber advantage, our technological advantage can't be disrupted because someone else has developed a way to get into our systems better than we've developed ways to defend them. that's not an acceptable conclusion. so we need to work to defend an international order that has advanced our security, that has advanced our prosperity, and that our allies and partners are an intricate part of.

this requires us to be sure that we're always ready. the secretary of defense mattis and senior leaders of the department of defense have spent a lot of time crafting the national defense strategy. this bill makes it possible for us to pursue that strategy. this is not a bill where the members of the senate pretend to be the master strategists of our defense. this is a bill that allows the members of senate with oversight, with responsibility of the people we work for to be sure that that plan not only makes sense but is supported. so the national defense authorization act, there's a total of $716 billion. half of all the discretionary money we spend, we spend on this topic, which would be another time to repeat my observation

earlier that this is our number-one priority as the federal government, or we wouldn't be spending half of all the discretionary money we spend on this. we need to be sure is that we keep faith with those who are serving, to be sure that they have the best resources, the best equipment, the best training that is possible. importantly, the authorization bill provides our service members with a pay raise of 2.6%. that's the biggest pay increase in a decade. and it needs to happen. it authorizes crucial multiyear procurement authority to keep our lines of defense production open. you have to have more than a 12-month commitment to build things like the fa-18 super hornets that are made in st. louis. we've been using those aircraft at a high volume of use, part of

flying package after flying package. the middle east has impacted our use of those planes and others. this is a bill that says, okay, we need to be sure that we're looking forward, not just for 12 months but for a multiple series of months that allow that line and the great men and women who work on it to keep it going. the ndaa invests in emerging technology, and we do all we can to assure that our troops have what they need to make their mission successful. this bill makes significant investments in research and engineering to be sure that, again, we have the cutting-edge military technologies and we have the cutting-edge ways to defend those military technologies. it's hard to me when we come of this bill every year not to make the point that we want to be sure that americans are never in a fair fight.

we want to be sure that they always have all the advantages any time they engage to protect our freedoms. this bill recognizes the critical importance of our allies and our partners around the globe who fight together with us, who have shared responsibilities with us. this bill provides support to counter what we see the chinese doing in the south china sea or what we see the russians doing as they look to and obviously resent the success of nato both economic and defense of those nato countries. it continues the fight against isis and terrorists in afghanistan. we're hopeful, i'm hopeful we've got some language in this bill whereas opposed to an annual designation, that recognizes those who have been wounded and

injured in the service, where we could make that an annual silver star service banner day. i'm grateful for the work that those families do every year and hope we can continue to honor them in this bill. this would frankly be a perfect bill to honor families of those who have been injured and wounded in service, as it also recognizes the incredible service of john mccain. i can't think of anyone whose life of service to this country is more paycheck pillarry, is -- is more exemplary, is more determined, is more vigorous to the people he serves, but also the taxpayers that we work for. the john s. mccain national defense authorization act is named for the chairman. he's given so much of his life to our service. this is a bill that i hope

appropriately honors his service, as i also hope it also appropriately does what we need to do to honor our number-one priority, the defense of america. and i will yield back, mr. president. mr. inhofe: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: first of all, let me just -- i couldn't have said it as well as the senator from missouri. this is the john s. mccain reauthorization bill, and obviously he's deserving of much more than that. since we're going to have the votes in just a few minutes, two votes, let me just make a couple of comments. and of course then i yield to the senator from rhode island. the first vote i believe we're 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.

congress has already required to authorize the development of nuclear weapons in each year's authorization appropriations bill. so the debate really isn't about the authorization. it's 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. and that's fine. that's what this system, that's what this vote is all about. we should debate it. we have debated it in the past. certainly in our committee we have, and that's the reason that it is on the committee and would have to be taken off here on the floor if that's the desire of the majority of members. that is not my desire. and that's just 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 11.

certainly it's important for them. let's be clear, the purpose of developing the low-yield capability is the same as our entire nuclear enterprise deterrence. according to the n.p.r., russia believes that 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, this conception. simply put, the ndaa authorizes the development of low-yield capability to make the nuclear use less likely to preserve and enhance the deterrence.

and that's what this is all about. and i think -- i've heard the arguments. we've debated this for many, many hours in committee, and it's one that i think we ought to have every capability that the russians have. of course we won't have that unless we have the low-yield capability. i'd 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 want to make one comment. i'll save my remarks on the next amendment, until after this, so that we can give senator reed an opportunity to visit about his amendment. mr. reed: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you, mr. presid. first let me thank the senator from oklahoma's graciousness in allowing me to respond.

as i read the language of the bill, the language we had in place in 2004 was stricken. that language prohibited essentially the production and development of a low-yield nuclear device. but in addition to that, the language that was inserted in the amendment -- in the bill that's before us now creates a process whereby in order to begin work and production and development of a low-yield or perhaps even any type of nuclear weapon, the secretary of energy simply must submit the request in the p budget, at which point they can begin reprogramming funds that already have been appropriated to start moving forward with the development of not only, certainly low-yield nuclear weapons. not just the one we're talking about, but in the future, additional ones. so the essence of my amendment is clearly to get to the point where we are considering going

forward with any new proposal by the administration. and i will emphasize too that this is the, the way this language is crafted in the bill is, it is the secretary of energy, not the secretary of defense that puts it in his budget. once it's in the budget they can begin to move money around. it can begin for this submarine launch system or a system we had in the past. we had artillery in the 1950's and 1960's. it might not be, frankly the secretary of defense or anyone else. it could be the president of the n.f.c. decides to do that. i am simply saying that we have had for a decade or more the responsibility, the obligation to authorize new nuclear weapons, and specifically

low-yield weapons. that is why we had to include in this bill, which we have, a specific authorization for this proposed submarine low-yield nuclear weapon. if the language existed as it's in the bill now, next year i don't think we would have that requirement. the secretary of energy could simply put it in his budget and then say it's ready to go. i'm moving money around. i'm going to go ahead and create a new low-yield device. maybe not a submarine device. maybe a short-range rocket for the u.s. army or a piece, which a -- the chairman from oklahoma understands because we were both in the service when they had those. this simply says we as the congress have the obligation, the responsibility to say the ndaa that is why we're on the

floor today with respect to this low-yield submarine system, because if we did not stand up and authorize it, it could not be constructed. we have included that in this bill. but as we go forward, i think we still have to have that congressional responsibility, particularly in a world that's becoming increasingly complicated by nuclear weapons not just from the major powers, but by rising powers by many countries. so i would urge my colleagues to support the amendment. it simply maintains the status quo and says if we're going to develop a new weapons system, come to us. we get to debate it, we approve it or we don't approve it. but the american people can rest assured that this is not something that has simply moved through the administrative channels of any executive, this president or any other president. with that, i would ask support. mr. inhofe: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma.

mr. inhofe: in just a moment, when the bill comes up, it's my intention to table the reed amendment. but i want to say this. this is the way things should work. we have debated this. we debated it in committee. i've heard his very logical remarks and positions, and he's heard mine. we have an honest disagreement. i just think this is a better example than some of the things we had heard recently from some of our colleagues. so i move to table the reed amendment number 2842 and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or to chge their vote?

if not,he yeas are 47. the nays are 51. the motion is not agreed to. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, i'd like to speak for just a moment about an amendment that i've offered, the due process guarantee act amendment. this is based on a bill that senator feinstein and i have introduced together and it has one purpose, to protect american citizens and lawful permanent residents on u.s. soil from being apprehended here and indefinitely detained. the presiding officer: the senate's not in order. mr. lee: in federalist number 84, alexander hamilton referred to unlawful imprisonment as one of the most formidable instruments of tiernts. if our -- tyrants.

to avoid this mistake, we need to undo a decision done in 1021 in the national defense authorization act which is still in effect today. this amendment does one thing, and it's very simple. it simply says that if you are a u.s. citizen or lawful permanent resident you may not be indefinitely detained on u.s. soil without trial, without charge. the presiding officer: the senate is not in order. mr. lee: without access to a jury or to counsel. these are not radical concepts. these are simply fundamental american concepts which are required by the constitution itself. so it is not too much to ask to suggest that we should have a vote on this year's defense authorization act given it was a defense authorization act passed seven years ago that started this to begin with. in the following congress, a virtually identical version

passed. it was stripped out in the conference committee later. today we have the opportunity -- the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mr. lee: today we have the opportunity to undo the wrong that was placed into law then the we must prohibit indefinite detention of american citizens and helpedded -- apprehended on u.s. soil. that is what this amendment does. we should not block a vote. i implore you to vote no on this motion to table. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: i want that same 30 seconds. i implore you all to understand the difference between fighting a crime and a war. his amendment is drafted -- as drafted applies outside the united states. remember the american citizen who was the head of al qaeda in

yemen, we killed the guy. last thing i want him to hear is that he has a right to a lawyer. there were sab tors with germany to commit sabotage in america. the court held an american citizen who joins an enemy forced up the war -- under war and can be tried by a military. mr. padilla, who sided with al qaeda, the court said it doesn't matter that you were captured in the united states. i don't want to read these guys their miranda right. they are high on the list of al qaeda and isis to use against us. if we capture them i don't want to read them pt miranda rights. american citizens suspected of joining the enemy, let's hear about whether or not they are giving up their citizenship.

that way we don't have to read them their miranda rights. what youe doing is incentivizing isis and al qaeda because they have protections that other people don't have. it's insane to say that america is not part of the battlefield. ask people in new york, ask people in the pentagon if america's part of the battlefield. if you think america's not a part of the battlefield, vote with him. if you think it is, table this. mr. lee: i ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds to respond. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. lee: it does not apply to people outside the united states. it does not apply to you if you are not a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil at the time of apprehension. this is made noncontroversial by the constitution itself. i urge you to vote no on this issue to table. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i move to table the

lee amendment 2666 and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the yeas are 30. the nays are 68. the motion to table is agreed to.