Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I object.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I couldn't have said it as well as the Senator from Missouri. This is the John S. McCain reauthorization bill and obviously he is deserving of much more than that. Amendment No. 2842 Since we are going to have the votes in just a few minutes--two votes--let me make a couple of comments, and then I will yield to the Senator from Rhode Island. I believe the first vote we are going to have is going to be the Reed amendment, and I do oppose it. This amendment would require congressional authorization for the development of nuclear weapons for one simple reason we already require. Congress is already required to authorize the development of nuclear weapons in each year's authorization and appropriations bill. The debate is not really about the authorization; it is about the ``Nuclear Posture Review.'' The ``Nuclear Posture Review'' calls for the United States to develop a low-yield nuclear capability, which some in Congress are against. That is fine. That is what this vote is on. We should debate it. We have debated it in the past, certainly in our committee we have, and that is the reason it is on the committee and would have to be taken off on the floor, if that is the desire of the majority of Members. That is not my desire. That is what we did. The Armed Services Committee considered an amendment to limit low- yield authorization, debate its merits, and voted it down by a bipartisan vote of 16 to 11. There is certainly support for it. Let's be clear. The purpose of developing the low-yield capability is the same as our entire nuclear enterprise--deterrence. According to the NPR, Russia believes we have a gap in our nuclear capability because we have no low-yield nuclear warheads. As a result, they may perceive that limited nuclear first use, including low-yield weapons, would present the United States with two bad choices in response: escalate or do nothing. Since neither response would be acceptable, Russia may see this as an opportunity to gain strategic advantage through the use of nuclear weapons. We must correct this Russian misconception. Simply put, the NDAA authorizes the development of low-yield capability to make nuclear use less likely, to preserve and enhance deterrence. That is what this is all about. I heard arguments--and we debated this for many hours in the committee, and it is one that I think we ought to have every capability the Russians have, and of course we will not have that unless we have the low-yield capability. I would hate to have our country in a position where the only choice we have is to do nothing or to use the high-yield equipment that we don't want to use. I will save my remarks on the next amendment, the Lee amendment, until after this so we can give Senator Reed the opportunity to visit about his amendment.

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

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

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

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my intent--and I will be doing it-- but I want to give a chance for Senator Paul to be on the floor when I do this. As we have said over and over again, Senator Reed and I have worked very closely in trying to get these amendments in place. I can remember in years past, when there were people who objected to any amendments, we ended up without amendments, so we had to pass a bill that didn't have an open amendment process on the floor. We wanted an open amendment process on the floor. I am talking about ``we'' being the Democrats, Republicans, and the leadership on both sides of the aisle. We have committed to that. We have tried to do that. Unfortunately, under Senate rules, one Senator can stop and object to moving on an amendment. If that happens and continues, the same thing will happen. I can remember four times in the past when we ended up without any amendments at all because one person objected. It is our intent to open it up so that people can offer their amendments, vote them down, vote them up--whatever we want to do. Right now, we have several amendments, and I would like to make a motion to adopt them en bloc. These amendments are amendments that have been cleared on both sides. There are 10 of them. All 10 are germane amendments. They are Ernst amendment No. 2289, Schatz No. 2441, Bennet No. 2617, Shaheen No. 2686, Heitkamp No. 2695, Lee No. 2723, Hatch No. 2755, Cruz No. 2598, and Tester No. 2818. These 10 amendments are all germane. They cleared on both sides. I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be called up en bloc.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I do regret this. Let me repeat what was just objected to. There are 10 amendments that are cleared on both sides. Democrats are all for them. Republicans are all for them. I suggest the junior Senator from Kentucky is for all these amendments too. If we don't have these amendments, what amendments will we have? What good does it do to offer an objection to these amendments that are all germane just because he is upset with some senior Senator from another State? I am thinking now: Where do we go from here? I am going to offer another bloc of votes as soon as we have some that are all germane and agreed to on both sides. When that happens, I am hoping there will not be an objection. I am hoping to break this logjam. If not, then what is going to happen is that we are going to end up voting for this bill. We know it is going to pass. It has passed for 57 consecutive years. It is going to pass, but it will pass without the amendments of those individuals who have wanted an open amendment process, which I have wanted, which my Democratic colleague has wanted, and we have made that effort for a long period of time. I am concerned. I think that it could end up that we will have--it is not as if we haven't had amendments. In our committee, we had some 300 amendments that we actually considered. We went through the amendment process. We have had a lot of input from other Members, but again, we are committed to an open amendment process. So far, it looks as if we are not going to get it. I just ask that whatever is causing my good friend from Kentucky to object to these amendments will be satisfied by some change. If he wants a vote on his amendment, let him go and pursue it. I hate to hold this bill hostage. I just got back from being with our troops all over the world. I was in CENTCOM, in EUCOM, in AFRICOM, talking to our troops who are over there. They know that their pay raise is in this bill. Their benefits are in there. This is one thing we need to do. If there is one thing that needs to be done, it is this bill. I think maybe there is something wrong with a system that says: If I can't have my way to get a vote on my amendment, I am going to kill everybody else's amendments. That is what I am afraid may be happening now. I am hoping my friend from Kentucky will reconsider and allow us to adopt amendments. It has nothing to do with an amendment the Senator from Kentucky has.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would suggest that the War Powers Act does specifically say that the President has the very power to enter our troops into combat. It shouldn't be necessary to say. People are asking me questions and calling up and asking: Where are we on the NDAA? I want to make a few comments about that and then give an exact status as to where we are right now. We said it before, but we can't overstate this: This NDAA bill is going to pass. We know it is going to pass. It has passed for 57 consecutive years, and it is one that has to pass because this is the most important bill of the year. Last night, we adopted a managers' package of some 45 bipartisan amendments. This is on top of some 300 amendments that we already have gone through in the committee. I want to say with my counterpart here--Senator Reed--that we are in total agreement on the procedures we should be following. We are in agreement on an open amendment process. Both the Democratic and Republican leadership are committed to an open amendment process. We have been trying to set that up, and we have not been shortchanging or shortcutting anyone's ability to be heard on their amendment, because we have already gone through 300 of these in committee, and then it passed unanimously to the floor. That is something that doesn't happen very often. I hope that we can have more amendments throughout this process. We are working to get consent to do that. I think we can make it happen. We want an open amendment process. Everybody wants that. I recently got back from visiting with American troops around the world--Afghanistan, Poland, Kuwait, just to name a few. When I meet with these troops, I go and talk to the enlisted guys in the mess hall. You can find out a lot more by sitting down and eating with the guys in the mess hall in Afghanistan than you can having a hearing in Washington, DC. One of the things I learned last week was that our troops want to know if we are really doing all we can. The proper authorizations, reports, trainings, things like we established in this bill would be improved by an open amendment process. The open amendment process is the hallmark of our democracy. It is very significant, and it is something we need to be doing, and we are all in agreement on that. Now, the NDAA is also a message to our allies around the world. They don't want to have to hedge their bets. It wasn't too long ago we were in the South China Sea, and we saw where China is actually building all of these islands out there. I contend, it is illegally building them because they don't own the land. It is almost as if they are preparing for World War III. All of that is going on right now. So it is a very hostile world out there. We saw the progress the President made yesterday with Kim Jong Un. That was nothing short of a miracle that they are sitting down and visiting, that they have agreed on certain denuclearization prospects. I think they have done a great job, and I am anxious to give this President the authority to continue in his work. While we continue to work out the amendment process, I ask my colleagues to come down to the floor. Let me say where we are right now. Senator Corker is blocking the consideration of all amendments, unless he receives a vote on his amendment. I appreciate very much the friendly attitude he has had toward this. He feels very strongly, but there is a blue-slip problem with this; that is, it is not going to be considered by the House because it is a revenue issue we are dealing with, and that is why it is a blue-slip issue. I know Senator Corker did want to correct that last night, and he attempted to do it. I have not heard that he has been able to successfully do it, and I don't believe he has. There are several already who have said, in the event Corker tries to bring it up for a vote, they will block that vote. So that vote would be blocked. Senator Paul and Senator Lee have amendments that are similar to each other. Each one is blocking unless he receives a vote. So we have Senator Lee saying, unless he gets a vote on his amendment, he is going to block anyone else from having an amendment or getting a vote; in other words, no amendments. Senator Paul, the same thing, no amendments. Now, their amendments are similar to each other, but there are some slight differences, but that is where they are right now. However, Senator Graham and Senator Grassley have said, in the event Senator Paul or Senator Lee puts their amendment forward, they would stop their amendments from coming up. So that is where we are. We have the Corker amendment, and it is one that has a blue-slip problem. We have the indefinite detention amendment by Paul, and both Graham and Grassley have said they would object if that comes up for a vote. So we can't have a vote on that. There is nothing we can do except get them together to decide. This significant bill we are talking about is the most significant bill of the year, and we can't move on it until--and, I agree, there is a problem. I have talked to a lot of our Members who are fairly new Members, and they talk about the Senate process and that one person can stop everything from happening. Well, it has been that way a long time, and this is where we seem to have to pay dearly for it. I have to say this also because many times on legislation we have on the floor, it is Democrat versus Republican, Republican versus Democrat. Well, Senator Reed and I don't have any disagreement. We disagree on some of the issues we are going to be dealing with as we debate amendments--and that is going to happen this week--but we both agree the other has the chance to present his best case and try to win on the issues. So that is going on, and this is one of the rare cases where I guess all the problems we are having objecting to amendments are all coming from the Republican side. I hope our Republicans will get together with each other and determine what areas they actually will be objecting to. That is where we are right now. Let me, one more time, commend Senator Reed for the cooperation we are getting between the Democrats and Republicans on this, the most significant bill of the year. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we just heard a very lengthy explanation of an amendment that no one had seen until about an hour ago--at least I don't know of anyone who has. I think the Senator from Tennessee has every right to do what he can to get his amendment heard, and there are opportunities other than the Defense Authorization bill. One of the problems--and I have worked on these Defense authorization bills for years and years--decades--is that they know it is going to pass. It has passed for 57 consecutive years. So a lot of people who want to put in things that are nongermane and very often controversial want to put them on that because they know it is going to pass. Senator Corker's is not the only amendment that is a problem amendment for this. There are two other nongermane amendments, one by Senator Lee and one by Senator Paul. They say: If I don't get a vote on my amendment, then I am going to stop all other amendments from coming up, so nobody gets to have an amendment. At the same time that they are saying that about the Paul amendment and the Lee amendment, we have other Members, such as Senator Grassley and Senator Graham, who are both saying: We are going to make sure you don't get a vote on that. So, whatever the case is, you have opposing parties saying: If you get a vote on something I disagree with, I am going to stop all amendments from coming forth. In a way, they can do that, and I can see that happening right now. I would ask my friend--because I am going to object; I am going to object not just because of the underlying bill but because it is an amendment that changes the underlying bill. I have had occasion to talk to two Members of the House who will be part of our conference committee, who strenuously object, not so much to the content of the amendment but to the fact that this is being put on. It will force the House to go back in and reconsider their bill, according to our friend who just advised us of that. So I don't want to do anything that is going to either jeopardize or delay the passage of the Defense authorization bill. I just got back from Afghanistan, Kuwait, and places all over the world where our troops are, and they all know that this is the week that help is on its way. We have suffered in this Chamber for the last 10 years. During the Obama administration--I don't say this in a negative way about him, but I will say that he didn't have a strong national defense as a top priority, and he had a policy in which he said: We can't do anything about sequestration in defense unless we do the same thing for the nondefense programs. What does that tell you? It tells you there is no priority for defending America. That is not what our Constitution says. That should be a priority. As a result, we have a lot of systems that have gone down. As General Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said: We are losing our competitive edge. We are losing it. Actually, he said that 2 years ago, so we have lost it in some areas. Artillery is a good example. Right now, artillery is measured by two means--one by rapid fire and one by range. Both China and Russia now have better artillery than we have in the United States. Most people don't believe that. They don't know what has happened to our military. Hypersonic is the new weapon that operates at five times the speed of sound. This is something we have been working on. We are racing against our peer competitors--China and Russia--and they are ahead of us. They are ahead of us in the area of the nuclear triad. We haven't done anything to our nuclear program in the last 10 years, and they are ahead of us. So all these things are happening. The troops know it is out there. They know their pay raise is in this bill. They know their benefits are in this bill. They know it is a good bill. It should pass unanimously in the U.S. Senate. But if you start putting something on it that, No. 1, doesn't belong on it in terms of germaneness, and, No. 2, is going to cause a pause that could be detrimental to our fighting troops and for getting the bill done, then I wouldn't want to do that. So I would like to join Senator Corker in finding another bill. I will do all I can to help him to get that on as an amendment, but not to the Defense authorization bill. I think this would cause a lot of damage. The House agrees with this. I can't let that happen. For that reason, I object.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I appreciate the comments by the Senator from South Dakota. I think the point is, this is the most important bill of the year. I want to make only a couple of comments, and I was hoping to make these comments while the Senator from Tennessee was still here. One is that I have a disagreement because he mentioned that this bill--the most important bill of the year--is very often not considered until November or December. The absolute deadline is the end of December. I can remember getting within 2 or 3 days of that deadline in the past, and, if that happened, then our flyers wouldn't get flight pay or there would no longer be any hazard pay. There were a lot of things we would have to give up that we couldn't afford to give up. We made a commitment--and it wasn't just me by myself; it was with the Senator from Rhode Island, who is handling the bill on the Democratic side--that we wanted to have amendments. We preferred not to have nongermane amendments, and that would be my goal, if I am around here next year when we do this, to lay groundwork so that we don't have nongermane amendments. As I said, this is a bill that will pass. Normally, for things that don't pass any other way, if they can get them on as amendments, they can get them passed. We have the same situation happening right now, not just with Senator Corker but also with Senator Rand Paul and the Senator from Utah. That wasn't going to work either way. The problem I had with Senator Corker's change was it was a very long change that changed the underlying bill, and, as was pointed out by the Senator from South Dakota, that would mean we would have to go back over to the House. I don't feel comfortable doing that when we have all of those kids out there who are looking at pay raises and wondering what is really happening in Washington. Is there really not the support we anticipated that they all had? I am sincere when I say this; he isn't here now, but I said it when he was here. If Senator Corker wants to get this done, and I know he does, I will help him. We have a lot of time to find another bill that might be more germane, but it would not be on this bill that we really can't afford to jeopardize. I feel strongly about that. We were attempting to help him get a vote initially, and then, when he changed the underlying bill, that meant we would have to go back to everyone. He mentioned his coauthors, and we don't know how many of those coauthors would still be supporting his amendment if they knew it was changing the underlying bill. Those are the problems we have here, and I think we want to get on with, as rapidly as possible, getting these amendments opened up so that people can vote on the amendments and hopefully get the bill done this week. I don't know if it will be this week or not. Senator Corker was also implying we are doing something for this President with this amendment, and I wish to remind everyone of the fact that there are several things the President--our new President-- had in mind. He wanted to privatize air traffic control. I almost singlehandedly stopped that, and that was one of his main objectives. Also, he wanted to have a BRAC round in this bill that is on the floor now, and we stopped that. Many of the provisions that he wanted we have taken out of the bill. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me state how much I appreciate the passion the Senator from New York has on this issue. She has been so outspoken on this in committee, and I think most of us agree that there are problems out there that need to be addressed. In 2014, a congressionally mandated, independent panel of experts determined that there is no evidence that removing the authority to convene courts martial from commanders would reduce the incidence of sexual assault, increase reporting of sexual assaults, or improve the quality of investigations and prosecutions in sexual assault cases in the Armed Forces. The Department of Defense opposes this amendment on the grounds that doing so will endanger military readiness and combat effectiveness without promoting the goal of eliminating sexual assault. I don't know what the intentions of the Senator from New York are on this amendment, but in all fairness, I have to state that I will be opposing it. We did consider this in committee, and I have never seen a stronger advocate for a cause or an amendment than the Senator from New York. For some of us who have been in military service--I do have a problem with taking away the authority that has always historically been with the commander and feel that would not be to the benefit of the overall system. Two years ago, Congress passed extensive military justice reform, which will come into effect next year. I think that is correct. Rather than imposing additional reforms, I think we ought to allow the DOD to work on implementing the previous legislation to see if that resolves some of the problems that are articulated very effectively by the Senator from New York. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I send a modification to amendment No. 2282 to the desk.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2282.

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, we have just worked out a managers' package with Ranking Member Reed and the majority and minority leaders that includes the text of 44 bipartisan amendments in the modified substitute amendment. Those 44 bipartisan amendments are as follows: Rounds No. 2273; Rounds No. 2275; Inhofe No. 2278; Reed No. 2283; Warner No. 2285; Fischer No. 2286; Shaheen No. 2291; Feinstein No. 2293; Peters No. 2313; Gillibrand No. 2335, as modified; Heitkamp No. 2338; Smith No. 2340; Cardin No. 2347; Wicker No. 2351; Inhofe No. 2353; Menendez No. 2360; Cortez Masto No. 2367; Hoeven No. 2368; Perdue No. 2380; Heller No. 2392; Inhofe No. 2402; Sullivan No. 2408; Nelson No. 2424; Van Hollen No. 2426; Inhofe No. 2429; Gardner No. 2430; Collins No. 2436; Young No. 2463; Cruz No. 2469; Nelson No. 2489; Wicker No. 2503; Manchin No. 2508; Roberts No. 2513; Cotton No. 2514; Udall No. 2527; Stabenow No. 2537; Donnelly No. 2542; Lankford No. 2553; Fischer No. 2554; Cardin No. 2562; Rubio No. 2564; Reed No. 2636; Schumer No. 2757; Menendez No. 2683; and Smith No. 2523.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, the comments that were made by my friend from Florida are right on target. I recall--actually, it was 30 years ago--a book that was written by Anthony Kubek called, ``Modernizing China.'' Everything he said at that time that was going to happen in the future has now happened with the leaders and the freedoms that China has never known. Then, when you go and see what is happening all around the world right now with China and in the South China Sea--they are building all of these islands down there. Our allies believe they are preparing for World War III, so that is really serious stuff. Anyway, we are going to be voting in a few minutes on moving forward on the bill that every year, arguably, is the most significant bill of the year. It has passed now for 57 consecutive years. We are anxious to get to the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act. It is our hope, as we consider the bill this week, that we can have an open amendment process, just as we did in the committee markup, where we considered 300 bipartisan amendments. I am joined here by Senator Reed, who is the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. We are all in agreement on a lot of things, one being an open amendment process. We want to make sure everyone has an opportunity to offer their amendments. Unfortunately, with the rules of the Senate, it is sometimes difficult because people can object to anything, and then everything stops. But on this bill, I can't imagine it is going to happen because of the significance of this bill. We can't overstate the significance of the NDAA legislation, which prioritizes modernizing our forces. There is widespread agreement that we need this legislation. Just look at some of the headlines. This weekend, the Washington Post had an article about how the Pentagon fears we aren't keeping pace with China and Russia in the area of hypersonic weapons. Hypersonic weapons are weapons that move at five times the speed of sound. We are actually behind both China and Russia in developing that capability. We could say the same thing about the triad nuclear progress. We have done virtually nothing in the last 10 years while we have watched China and Russia go beyond this. Of course, these are the things we are addressing. On Memorial Day, the Oklahoman discussed how China and Russia have artillery capabilities. Artillery capabilities are generally looked at in terms of rapid fire and range, and they are ahead of us in both of these areas. This idea that America has the best of everything is something that most people believe, but we have fallen behind. We need not be critical of how we got behind. That is not important now. We know where we are, and we know we can start with this bill, and we are going to be having a motion to advance the bill. Let me say this. During the consideration of this bill in committee, we had well-attended meetings. We actually considered 300 amendments during the course of consideration in conference to bring it to the floor out of committee, and it passed unanimously, so it is something we worked on very closely together. Senator Jack Reed and I worked very closely, and we had very few disagreements. I think we both agree on this: We have to get the bill done, and we want to have an open amendment process. If, for some reason, there is a lot of objection to that, we will express ourselves, and, hopefully, we will be successful. With that, I thank Senator Reed not only for the cooperation we have had--not just from Senator Reed--but also for his leadership in the committee so that we could come to the point where we are today.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me make one more comment because it is not very often we come with a really significant piece of legislation that everyone agrees on; that everyone agrees we have to have. There is no question about that. I would say this also has the support of not just me and Senator Reed but also the leadership in the minority and the majority in the Senate. The one thing everyone agrees on is an open amendment process. It is frustrating, and I ask my friend from Rhode Island if he agrees with this; that under the Senate rules, one person can really make it very difficult--in fact, one person can preclude us from having any votes on amendments just because that is the way the Senate works. Last week, we experienced that on Thursday. We wanted to advance the bill at that time and bring it forward, but we couldn't because of just one individual making a demand that his amendment be heard. So I am hoping we discourage people from doing that. I think Senator Reed would join me in encouraging our Members to bring their amendments down to start moving this forward before something happens that obstructs the progress we anticipate we are going to be enjoying.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, there are some issues where we are going to have a partisan difference. We already pretty much know where they are. There are going to be some controversial votes, and that is fine. That is the way this is supposed to be, and this is a good way to settle it. I recently came back from Afghanistan, Kuwait, and a lot of places where we have our troops. Let me say that if we don't go ahead and get this done--because we have already announced the bill being done as we speak--we have an awful lot of troops out there who are going to really wonder: Are we really supportive, offering our support to them, these guys and gals who are out risking their lives and doing the heavy lifting? So we are anxious to get started, and we will have the vote shortly. We will get on the bill. I would like to go ahead and start in on amendments so, hopefully, that will take place. With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam Present, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield for a UC?

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks by the Senator from New Jersey, I be recognized as in morning business for as much time as I shall consume.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, arguably, the most significant bill to be introduced and passed every year is the National Defense Authorization Act. Yesterday, the leader moved to proceed to that bill, but then there was some objection. Senator Reed and I have spent some time and have been very concerned about getting this started. We passed this out of committee in record time and share the commitment that this bill is a matter fitting for the Senate's deliberative process. We want to have an amendment process, and we proposed this, but there was some objection to it yesterday. I think an open legislative process is one of the hallmarks of the democracy that we ask our servicemembers to protect and defend. They are out there on the line. We owe them everything that is in an annual bill. In fact, that bill has actually been passed every year. For the past 57 years, we have had a national defense authorization act. What we wanted to do this time, which would have been different from the last time, was to have had an open amendment process--heard a lot of amendments and had a lot of discussion on the floor. We intended to do that but were disappointed that there was an objection to that yesterday. That is why we have been working on satisfying those objections, and I think we have done this. I believe, by 12 noon or after the 12:30 vote, we are going to be in a position to go ahead and ask that the majority leader restate his motion to proceed and that it will be passed without objection. I am looking forward to that. I think we need to get started. I don't need to go into the arguments, as others are waiting for the floor right now, but we want to get this bill started immediately. It is not just to make sure we have the pay raises for our kids who are out there risking their lives, and it is not just that we have to keep up with the commitments we have made. We have gone through some dry years over the last 10 years. When I go around the country and talk to groups, there is this assumption that America has the best of everything, but that is not true anymore. That is one reason there is a sense of urgency on this. Take artillery, for example. The two things you use to measure the artillery capability of a country are those of range and rapid fire, and we are out-ranged and out-rapid fired by both Russia and China. They have other systems that are better than ours. Right now, one of the most modern systems is hypersonic warfare. A lot of people are not aware of this, but it allows us to go five times the speed of sound with a weapon. We have been developing this for some time. However, now we have found out that both Russia and China have been ahead of us on this. This bill is going to put us in high gear and make sure this development actually happens. Our triad system, our nuclear triad, is also one on which we have not been doing anything for the last 8 or 10 years, and now Russia and China have gotten ahead. This is something we are not going to tolerate. We have the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, and we are going to get to it today. I will mention that we are actually hoping for a couple of amendments to take place this afternoon. These have to be agreed to and have been agreed to by both sides. Boozman amendment No. 2276 is a study to suggest the permanent stationing of our troops in Poland. The second one is the McCain fellowship amendment, by Senator Reed, amendment No. 2284. I, and I am sure Senator Reed--I speak for him too--would like to get started on some amendments today instead of waiting around until Monday. Doing so will put us a lot further ahead than we otherwise would be. Our anticipation is to get this thing done by next week, and I think we can do it. I thank those who had some objection to moving to this bill. I very much appreciate their working with us. I think it will be completed, and I anticipate that the majority leader will have a motion that he will make after the 12:30 p.m. vote today. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. 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 XXII, the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 5515 at 1:45 p.m. today.